Washington (AP) The Supreme Court is considering a case Tuesday that might have broader implications for federal environmental regulation regarding a proposed western railroad expansion intended to increase crude oil production in Utah. Here s a look at the case, which includes a recusal by one justice and arguments about how far the government should go in considering potential harm to the environment against the backdrop of climate change.
The case will not be heard by which justice?
The arguments will only be heard by eight of the nine justices.Citing the court’s new rule of ethics, Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself last week. He didn’t elaborate, but he was being urged to go because of his previous connections to a Colorado millionaire who stood to gain from increased oil production in the area.
Philip Anschutz isn t a party to the case, but he owns oil wells in the area and his company filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that broader interpretation of the environmental law at the center of the case stymies development.
Gorsuch represented Anschutz before becoming a judge, and recused himself from cases involving him when he sat on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the group Accountable.us, which first called attention to the ties between the two men. In a letter last month, a dozen Democratic congressmen also requested him to withdraw from the case.
What is central to the case?
The projected 88-mile (142-kilometer) Uinta Basin Railway expansion across sandstone and sagebrush hills is at the heart of the case. By connecting oil and gas producers to the wider rail network, the multibillion-dollar project would enable them to reach larger markets and even quadruple production.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the project was approved by Surface Transportation Board authorities. But environmental groups and a Colorado county said in a lawsuit that regulators should have considered broader potential environmental impacts, like increased wildfire risk and a potential train derailment that could dump oil into the headwaters of the Colorado River.
Last year, a Washington, D.C., federal appeals court concurred and reversed the approval. Backers of the projectappealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that regulators should only be considering more direct impacts and the project should get back on track.
Why is it important?
The case turns on how federal agencies consider potential harm to the environment when they re deciding whether to approve development projects.
Developers say that process can create years of delay, but environmental groups say it s a key protection for air and water quality.
The Biden administration falls somewhere in the middle. They re defending regulators decision to approve the Utah project, but say the railway supporters would go too far in limiting the scope of environmental law.
The court s conservative-majority court has taken other steps to curtail the power of federal regulators, includingstriking downa decades-old decision known as Chevron that made it easier for the federal government to set a wide range of regulations.
The Associated Press, 2024. All rights reserved. All rights reserved. It is prohibited to publish, broadcast, rewrite, or redistribute this content without authorization.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!