A recent decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court has curbed some judicial overreach and continued a thread previously taken up by the nation’s highest court regarding the relationship between judicial interpretations and the authority of government agencies. In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, decided Thursday, the Supreme Court vacated a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which had itself vacated a decision by the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) that granted permission for construction of a railroad.

The case originated when Seven County Infrastructure Coalition applied to the board for permission to build a railroad in 2020. STB compiled a staggering 3,600-page report on the possible environmental impacts of building the railroad and ultimately concluded “that the project’s transportation and economic benefits outweighed its environmental impacts” and granting permission for the railroad to be constructed.

After lawsuits were filed, the circuit court vacated the STB’s decision, ruling that the board had not properly considered “the potential environmental effects of increased upstream oil drilling … and increased downstream refining of crude oil” in the area where the railroad was to be constructed, citing the provisions established in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Supreme Court ruled Thursday, “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” construction and operation of the railroad.

NEPA requires STB and similar agencies to consider the possible environmental impacts of proposed projects and suggest viable alternatives. The Supreme Court’s ruling clarified, “Some federal courts reviewing NEPA cases have assumed an aggressive role in policing agency compliance with NEPA, and have not applied NEPA with the judicial deference demanded by the statutory text and the Court’s cases.” The ruling continued, “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.”

The ruling, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and joined by seven of his fellow justices, with Justice Neil Gorsuch recusing himself from the case, stipulated that legal questions are for courts to decide, while “factual determinations” are for the relevant agencies to decide. “Courts should defer to agencies’ discretionary decisions about where to draw the line when considering indirect environmental effects and whether to analyze effects from other projects separate in time or place,” the ruling affirmed.

Specifically, Kavanaugh cited Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, one of a pair of cases which the Supreme Court decided last summer, undoing what was known as the “Chevron doctrine.” In the 1984 case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Supreme Court instructed all courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute within the scope of its operation if that statute was considered “ambiguous.” The policy significantly bolstered the power of federal agencies to interpret statutes without judicial oversight. Last year, the Supreme Court determined that the Chevron doctrine was unconstitutional, conflicting with both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the federal judiciary’s constitutional authority to interpret statutory texts and effectively permit executive agencies to usurp the role of the judiciary in interpreting statutes.

Citing Loper, the Supreme Court clarified that although NEPA requires environmental impact reports to be “detailed,” and “the meaning of ‘detailed’ is a legal question … what details need to be included in any given [report] is a factual determination for the agency.” Kavanaugh wrote, “NEPA does not allow courts, ‘under the guise of judicial review’ of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand.” He added, “Courts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness.”

The Supreme Court ruling comes as numerous federal courts have issued sweeping universal injunctions against President Donald Trump and his administration, highlighting calls for the highest court to curb judicial overreach. In comments to The Washington Stand, Article III Project Senior Counsel Will Chamberlain stated, “The court’s decision Thursday was very obviously right — even the Democrats did not dissent. NEPA reviews do not have to be as onerous as the D.C. Circuit suggested.” He added, “The Supreme Court, however, needs to do more to curb the judicial sabotage by resentful lower court judges.”

Within his first 100 days back in the Oval Office, Trump and his administration were slapped with at least 25 universal injunctions by federal district courts, according to a Congressional Research Service report. Injunctions and temporary restraining orders (TROs) have targeted many of the president’s actions, including carrying out mass deportations, withholding federal funds from “sanctuary cities,” ending birthright citizenship, protecting children from harmful gender transition procedures, slashing wasteful agency spending, downsizing the federal workforce, bolstering election integrity, and reorganizing agencies like the Department of Education.

The Trump administration has repeatedly petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene and curtail the lower courts’ use of nationwide injunctions. While the Supreme Court has handed the president mixed results — significant wins in some cases and temporary setbacks in others — it has not yet taken action against the increasing use of universal injunctions.

However, the Supreme Court did hear oral arguments in mid-May in a case in which the Trump administration has centered its attention on the rash of injunctions enjoining the president’s agenda. Some justices indicated during oral arguments an openness to curbing universal injunctions but appeared unsatisfied with the Trump administration’s suggestions on what measures to use in place of universal injunctions. A decision in the case is expected by late June or early July.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.