US Supreme Court sparks backlash after ruling in favor of controversial railroad project: 'Endangers local communities'
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to environmentalists, siding with a railroad expansion in Utah to help transport crude oil.
As the Guardian reported, the court ruled unanimously in favor of the railroad, deciding that the original lower court based its ruling to stop the railroad on an environmental impact assessment that was too limited in scope.
According to The Salt Lake Tribune, the expansion of the Uinta Basin Railway would add around 88 miles of track and could connect oil suppliers with a wider market, such as refining facilities on the Gulf Coast.
The project was approved in 2021 but paused in 2023 after multiple parties challenged it.
The recent ruling to continue the project worries environmentalists around the country. It challenges protections that have held since the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act.
NEPA sets forth a process for agencies to assess the environmental, social, and economic impact of a particular project, followed by a period of public review and community comments.
Siding with the railroad expansion could challenge environmental protection precedents.
Ashfaq Khalfan, Oxfam America's director of climate justice, said, "The Supreme Court's decision endangers local communities, many of them Indigenous and rural, in favor of the dirty energy status quo," per the Guardian.
The Supreme Court decision is a danger to communities around the railway. For one, the transported oil poses a large threat to the Colorado River, its ecosystem, and the communities it serves if the train derails or oil spills, as The Colorado Sun reported.
Communities can be exposed to pollutants from a variety of industrial activities. One of the most famous instances is the story of Erin Brockovich, who began a legal case against Pacific Gas and Electric Company regarding groundwater contamination in California.
Do you think your city has good air quality?
Definitely
Somewhat
Depends on the time of year
Not at all
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Pollution impacts communities around the world every day. Air pollution health risks include respiratory issues, cardiovascular disease, and cancers. Polluted water can cause a variety of gastrointestinal issues, skin conditions, and cancers.
"Our bedrock environmental laws, like NEPA, are meant to ensure people are protected from corporate polluters. … Today's decision will undoubtedly help the fossil fuel industry," said Sierra Club senior attorney Nathaniel Shoaff.
Most often, marginalized groups bear the brunt of environmental hazards and pollution.
With mass layoffs in key government organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency, scientists and experts warn of repercussions for the health of people and the environment.
Organizations like the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity are working to protect the people and environments most impacted by corporate decisions like this railroad expansion.
Voting for political leaders who recognize the serious nature of the changing climate and its effects, regardless of which side of the political aisle they fall on, is also vital to continuing to protect the environment.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
31 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court delivers another blow to California's imperiled emissions standards
The Supreme Court reinstated legal challenges by oil and gas companies Friday to California's strict emissions standards for motor vehicles, standards that the Trump administration is likely to halt on its own in the near future. Federal law allows California to set tighter limits on auto emissions than the national standard, and since 1990 has allowed other states to adopt California's rules, an option taken by 17 states and the District of Columbia. But fuel companies affected by the increasing use of electric vehicles contend the state's standards are too restrictive and have sued to overturn them. Lower federal courts ruled that companies had failed to show they were being harmed by the standards, and therefore lacked legal standing to sue, because electric car sales are increasing for other reasons. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court.' But dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said lawyers in the case had told the court that the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump, was about to withdraw its approval of California's waiver from nationwide standards, 'which will put an end to California's emissions program.' The EPA took that action during Trump's first administration, which was reversed under President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump would prevent California from banning sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles in 2035, a law the state has challenged in court. The Supreme Court 'is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' and Friday's ruling 'will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,' said Jackson, a Biden appointee. In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court should have returned the case to a lower court to await the EPA's action. Kavanaugh, however, said fuel companies affected by California's current standards could seek to prove in court that they were arbitrary and unlawful. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said it was not a full-scale rejection of the state's emissions standards. 'This ruling does not change California's Advanced Clean Cars rulemaking, nor does it dispute what data has shown to be true: vehicle emissions are a huge source of pollution with grave health impacts, consumer adoption of zero emission vehicles continues to rise, and global auto manufacturers are committed to an electric future,' she said in a statement. But attorney Brett Skorup of the libertarian Cato Institute said the ruling was 'a welcome rebuke to judicial gatekeeping' and affirmed that 'predictable economic harms from government regulation' entitle 'injured parties (to) have their day in court.' The case is Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, No. 24-7.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California's 30-day gun law unconstitutional, appeals court rules
California violates the constitutional right to own guns by limiting purchases to one every 30 days, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. It was the latest in a series of decisions reassessing the state's firearms restrictions since the Supreme Court set new limits on gun-control laws four years ago. The state contended its law, which restricted handgun sales in 1999 and was expanded to apply to all firearms last year, was a safety measure to prevent owners from stockpiling weapons and making 'straw sales' to people who could not legally buy them. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the restriction unduly interferes with the right to keep and bear arms. 'We doubt anyone would think government could limit citizens' free-speech right to one protest a month, their free-exercise right to one worship service per month, or their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures to apply only to one search or arrest per month,' Judge Danielle Forrest said in the 3-0 ruling. 'Possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment,' Forrest said, 'and California's law is not supported by our nation's tradition of firearms regulation.' She was referring to the standard set by the Supreme Court in 2022 when it overturned New York's ban on carrying concealed handguns in public. In that ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas said government restrictions on firearms are unconstitutional unless they are shown to be 'consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' Firearms advocates have challenged a number of California laws under that standard. But courts have upheld the state's restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in areas such as parks, banks and government buildings. A state law banning gun possession by domestic violence abusers survived when the Supreme Court upheld a similar federal law last year. And the appeals court has upheld a ban on gun sales on state property. In Friday's decision, however, Forrest said limiting where guns can be sold 'is a significantly lesser interference with an individual's ability to acquire (and therefore possess) firearms than banning the purchase of more than one firearm in a 30-day period.' Forrest, appointed by President Donald Trump, was joined by Judges Bridget Bade, another Trump appointee, and John Owens, appointed by President Barack Obama. Owens said in a separate opinion that he agreed with Forrest's reasoning but added that the case 'does not address other means of reducing bulk and straw purchasing of firearms, which our nation's tradition of firearm regulation may support.' The ruling upheld a decision by U.S. District Judge William Hayes of San Diego. Raymond DiGuiseppe, lawyer for gun companies and individuals who challenged the law, said Friday's ruling was 'the only acceptable outcome in a society where all constitutional rights must stand on equal footing.' Attorney General Rob Bonta's office said the state 'is committed to defending our common-sense gun safety laws' and declined further comment. Bonta could ask the full appeals court for a new hearing before a larger panel.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Supreme Court rejects fast track of Trump tariff challenge by toy companies
Key Points President Donald Trump's tariffs, a key part of his trade agenda, have drawn legal challenges from businesses and individuals questioning his authority to implement the high levies. The Supreme Court ruling gives the Trump administration more time to file its response to the challenge from two toy companies. The two toy companies argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not give Trump the authority to implement his tariffs. The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request from two toy companies to expedite their challenge to President Donald Trump's tariffs. The ruling from the nation's high court means that the Trump administration now has the standard 30-day window to file its response to the challenge. Two small family-owned companies, Learning Resources and hand2mind, argued that Trump lacked authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose his April 2 tariffs. The companies earlier this week asked the Supreme Court to expedite consideration of their challenge and bypass a federal appeals court. "In light of the tariffs' massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the president claims, challenges to the IEEPA tariffs cannot await the normal appellate process," the companies argued in their request. Rick Woldenberg, the chairman and CEO of Learning Resource and hand2mind, told CNBC that the Friday Supreme Court decision "was a disappointment but honestly just another twist in the road." "You want to win every motion but sometimes you don't," he said, adding that, "ultimately this showdown will be at the Supreme Court." Trump declared a national economic emergency under the IEEPA to justify implementing his tariffs without first getting congressional approval, a strategy that has drawn legal challenges from businesses and individuals questioning his authority The U.S. Court of International Trade last month temporarily blocked Trump's tariffs, saying that the IEEPA, which became law in 1977, does not authorize a president to implement universal duties on imports. But a federal appeals court earlier this month allowed Trump's tariffs to remain in effect until it hears arguments on that case at the end of next month. — CNBC's Lori Ann Wallace contributed reporting.
