On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County that courts owe “substantial agency deference” when reviewing environmental documents under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Court also narrowed the required scope of agencies’ NEPA reviews, holding that an agency need not analyze the upstream or downstream effects of projects that are separate in time or space from a proposed action or are outside that agency’s control.
The decision in Eagle County reflects bipartisan interest in reducing what many perceive as unnecessary barriers to development. It is not clear that the decision or the regulatory changes in progress will achieve that goal, but they may result in NEPA reviews that fail to capture the full picture of projects’ environmental effects. And if agencies rely on Eagle County to justify significantly abbreviating the NEPA process and public comment in particular, these processes may be more drawn out than before due to increased litigation and other forms of opposition.
In this analysis, we discuss the legal consequences of Eagle County, how the decision fits within this broader regulatory and legislative context, and what other changes for NEPA may be on the way.