Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County.
The Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the D.C. Circuit regarding the U.S. Surface Transportation Board\'s approval of a railroad line in Utah. The D.C. Circuit had vacated the Board\'s environmental impact statement (EIS) and approval order due to alleged NEPA violations. The Supreme Court reversed, emphasizing judicial deference to agency determinations under NEPA.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County.
The Court held that the D.C. Circuit failed to afford the Board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County
The case primarily deals with the limits of agency authority and the judicial deference required in reviewing agency decisions under NEPA.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The D. C. Circuit failed to afford the Board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases and incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require the Board to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the Uinta Basin Railway.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County
The Court's decision involves the scope of judicial review of agency actions, emphasizing deference to agency determinations under NEPA.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)When, as here, a party argues that an agency action was arbitrary and capricious due to a deficiency in an EIS, the 'only role for a court' is to confirm that the agency has addressed environmental consequences and feasible alternatives as to the relevant project.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County
The case involves procedural requirements under NEPA, which are akin to procedural due process in ensuring fair procedures in agency decision-making.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)NEPA ensures that agencies and the public are aware of the environmental consequences of certain proposed infrastructure projects. As a purely procedural statute, NEPA 'does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process' for an agency's environmental review of a project.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County that support the summary and concepts above.
The D. C. Circuit found 'numerous NEPA violations arising from the EIS.'
Judicial deference in NEPA cases extends to an agency's determination of what details are relevant in an EIS.
NEPA 'does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process.'
