The Supreme Court's Devastating NEPA Ruling Paves the Way for Unchecked Climate Destruction

The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling on May 29, 2025, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County struck a devastating blow to environmental accountability. By limiting the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to only a project’s direct effects, the Court has stripped away the requirement to evaluate broader impacts, such as emissions from oil drilling or pollution harming nearby communities. This decision clears the way for highways, pipelines, and airports to charge forward without fully reckoning with their toll on our warming planet.

For over fifty years, NEPA has empowered the public by ensuring federal agencies disclose a project’s full environmental cost. Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion, however, shrinks this vision to a narrow snapshot, ignoring cumulative harms. Why does this matter so deeply? Because dismissing climate consequences in an era of rising seas and raging wildfires betrays the very communities the law was meant to protect.

Consider the Uinta Basin rail project in Utah, where a 2021 Environmental Impact Statement noted flood risks but overlooked downstream greenhouse gas emissions. The D.C. Circuit flagged this gap in 2023, yet the Supreme Court’s ruling now permits such oversights as routine. Projects fueling oil and gas expansion can proceed without revealing their climate footprint, leaving communities—especially those already battered by storms or heatwaves—to face the fallout.

Groups like the Constitutional Accountability Center highlight the ruling’s dire impact on environmental justice. Low-income neighborhoods and communities of color, often situated near industrial zones, endure disproportionate pollution and climate risks. NEPA’s comprehensive reviews once offered these groups a platform to demand accountability. With that platform weakened, their health and safety hang in the balance.

Industry leaders and certain policymakers praise the ruling, claiming NEPA’s lengthy reviews—growing from 150 pages in the 1980s to over 600 by 2020—stifle progress. They frame streamlined permitting as a win for infrastructure. Yet this narrative ignores reality. Delays often stem from understaffed agencies or strategic lawsuits by industries dodging regulations, not from NEPA itself.

The broader context exposes their priorities. The Trump administration’s 2025 deregulatory spree, including the EPA’s rollback of methane rules and vehicle-emissions standards, aligns with this ruling to favor fossil fuel profits over public welfare. These actions don’t serve everyday people; they enrich oil and gas giants while our air and water suffer.

The climate crisis requires rigorous scrutiny of infrastructure projects. Since the 2010s, federal agencies, guided by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, have woven climate risk into NEPA reviews. The 2022 CEQ guidance pushed for assessing both immediate and long-term climate impacts—a practice now at risk. How can we justify ignoring a pipeline’s emissions or a highway’s flood risks when they threaten entire communities?

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act offers a better path, with nearly $50 billion in resilience grants for climate-smart infrastructure. California’s Caltrans, for example, uses vulnerability assessments to plan for rising seas and wildfires. These efforts prove that thorough environmental planning saves lives and resources. The Court’s ruling, however, undermines such forward-thinking approaches, leaving us exposed to worsening disasters.

This ruling is a setback, but it’s also a rallying cry. Environmental advocates and Democratic lawmakers are pushing for legislative reforms to restore NEPA’s comprehensive scope. Grassroots campaigns are demanding that projects like LNG terminals face full climate scrutiny. Will we allow corporate interests to shape our future, or will we stand for clean air and thriving communities?

The stakes are immense. Every unexamined ton of emissions, every dismissed flood risk, pushes us closer to irreversible harm. We owe it to future generations to act decisively, ensuring our laws prioritize people and the planet over profit. The fight starts now.