For over half a century, companies seeking federal permits for construction and development projects have had to navigate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires agencies to conduct detailed environmental reviews before approving major actions. These reviews can delay projects for months or years and often provide grounds for legal challenges. While NEPA doesn’t mandate specific outcomes, findings of significant environmental impact typically lead to further review or added conditions.
In an article for The National Law Journal, Milbank LLP Litigation & Arbitration partner Colleen Roh Sinzdak, Corporate Group partner Thomas D. Goslin and Environmental Practice Group Leader Matthew Ahrens share perspectives on the Supreme Court’s recent Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County decision and its significance for developers, investors and agencies navigating the National Environmental Policy Act. The article examines how the unanimous ruling significantly narrows the scope of NEPA reviews and strengthens judicial deference to agency determinations. The authors also address key footnotes in the opinion that signal future arguments project proponents might use to challenge adverse agency decisions, especially under evolving political administrations.
