Navigating Environmental Restrictions on Alternative Project Delivery for Complex Infrastructure Projects
On-Demand Webinar | Recent Updates to Federal Environmental and Natural Resource Regulations
On-Demand Webinar | Regulatory Uncertainty and Linear Infrastructure Projects: Where Are We and What’s Ahead?
On-Demand Webinar | Linear Infrastructure Redux: Adapting Your Projects to Meet the New Regulatory Climate
On-Demand Webinar | The New NEPA Regulations: A Practical Guide to What You Need to Know
How Trump's Infrastructure Plan Impacts the Energy Industry
On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court—minus recused Justice Neil Gorsuch—decided Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, the first major NEPA dispute before the Court in 20 years. It’s a really big deal—coverage...more
On May 29, 2025, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (2025) 605 U.S. ____, the Supreme Court gave instruction that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) “is a procedural cross-check, not...more
On 29 May 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously declared that a “course correction” was needed for cases under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), holding that a law originally meant to be a procedural check to inform...more
Supreme Court aims to provide predictability by narrowing the scope of NEPA review - The Supreme Court’s latest ruling in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County marks a significant “course correction” in how...more
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al. The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified the scope of federal agency review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”)...more
Last week, the Supreme Court issued its eagerly awaited National Environmental Policy Act decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. We were not disappointed. ...more
In a highly unusual unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 29, 2025 that federal agencies are entitled to “substantial judicial deference” with respect to how they review projects subject to the National...more
In a significant decision interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado on May 29, 2025. For certain...more
On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-0 opinion that clarifies the scope of environmental effects analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and requires substantial judicial deference to...more
After nearly two decades of silence, the US Supreme Court on May 29, 2025, weighed in on an issue that has tremendous significance for permitting of complex infrastructure and other development projects—the depth and breadth...more
In a landmark ruling issued May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the D.C. Circuit in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, sharply limiting the scope of environmental review...more
The Supreme Court of the United States’ opinion, issued May 29, 2025, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, reaffirms the Court’s earlier, seminal decisions expounding judicial review under the...more
Over the last half century, federal courts have interpreted the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to require federal agencies to study an ever-growing range of indirect effects and impacts when approving large...more
The U.S. Supreme Court instructed lower courts to make a dramatic “course correction” in how they handle claims under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in its first major NEPA ruling in nearly two decades. Writing...more
On May 29, 2025, in a 8-0 ruling (Justice Gorsuch recused himself from the case), the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit erred in requiring federal regulators to evaluate the potential...more
A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 29 that lower courts had overstepped their bounds when reviewing federal agency actions pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The decision in Seven County...more
The decision emphasizes the importance of judicial deference to agencies on NEPA and narrows the scope of environmental analyses....more
On May 29, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court (voting 8-0, with Justice Gorsuch recused) held that federal agencies need not consider the environmental effects of “upstream” and “downstream” projects that are separate in time or...more
In a significant decision issued on May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Surface Transportation Board (the Board) was entitled to substantial deference under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and...more
In the first major National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) case to reach the Supreme Court in almost two decades, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on May 29, 2025, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v....more
On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) — which requires federal agencies to analyze the environmental impacts of projects that they carry out, fund, or approve — does not...more
On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its Opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado et al., one of the most high-profile National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, cases to reach...more
On May 29, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado that dramatically changes the way courts scrutinize federal agencies’ environmental reviews under the...more
On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, limiting the role of federal courts in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) cases. The Court recognized that...more
Readers of this blog will recall our recent discussion concerning the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the Court overruled the long-standing doctrine of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v....more