The focus of the dispute is on the Uinta Basin Railway, an envisioned 88-mile extension of the railroad that is intended to link oil and natural gas manufacturers with the wider rail system.
1
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed to favor a Utah oil railroad expansion in arguments on Tuesday, but appeared more skeptical of putting strict new limits on a key national environmental law.
The justices were weighing a multibillion-dollar project that could quadruple oil production in the remote area of sandstone and sagebrush. Backers of the project asked the justices to get the project back on track and urged them limit the scope of environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act to speed up development.
The case centers on the Uinta Basin Railway, a proposed 88-mile (142-kilometer) expansion that would connect oil and gas producers to the broader rail network, allowing them to access larger markets. The court’s conservative-majority court has taken other steps to curtail the power of federal regulators, including striking down the decades-old Chevron doctrine that made it easier for the federal government to set a wide range of regulations.
But key conservatives like Chief Justice John Roberts questioned how the railway backers’ proposed limits might affect the environmental review process.
“I have trouble seeing how this is going to work out as a practical matter,” said Roberts.
Justices across the ideological spectrum also questioned attorneys on the other side who argued that regulators must consider a broad range of potential environmental impacts when they decide whether to approve new development. In the case of the Utah railway, environmental groups and a Colorado county have argued that should include the effect of additional crude oil production from the area and increased refining in Gulf states.
An appeals court in Washington. D.C., sided with them and tossed out the environmental approval from the Surface Transportation Board.
The Supreme Court, though, appeared likely to overturn that decision, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggesting courts had been “overly aggressive” in their expectations of what agencies should be considering.
“It seems to me the deference of the courts has to be huge with respect to how the agencies think about the scope of what they’re going to consider,” he said.
The project could still face additional legal and regulatory hurdles if the court rules in its favor.
One justice, Neil Gorsuch, recused himself from the case after facing calls to step aside over ties to Philip Anschutz, a Colorado billionaire whose ownership of oil wells in the area means he and could benefit if the project goes through. Gorsuch represented him before becoming a judge.
The court is expected to decide the case in the coming months.
