FedSoc: SCOTUS Ruling on Infrastructure Not 'Silver Bullet'

expect the decision -- which limits the scope of National Environmental Policy Act reviews and requires courts to defer to agencies on what is included in them -- to ease permitting for broadband buildout projects (see 2505300051). Plaintiffs are still likely to sue over infrastructure projects or try to get agencies to broaden the scope of their reviews, Loyola said. If district judges respect the SCOTUS ruling, it could shave years from infrastructure projects, he said. “NEPA litigation adds an average of 4.5 years to major projects before a single shovel hits dirt,” Loyola said. Because it requires deference to agency technical decisions, the Seven Counties decision could also “restore robust deference on questions of fact, science, and policy,” Loyola said. “It accords with our separation of powers system to say that courts decide what statutes mean, but agencies take the lead (and therefore courts defer) on technical and policy judgments.” To use Seven Counties to fend off legal challenges to projects, attorneys should argue that distant environmental or social justice impacts fall outside an agency’s area of expertise and that additional studies wouldn’t change the agency’s decision, Loyola said. “Under Seven County Infrastructure, courts cannot second-guess methodological calls that the record shows were considered -- and reasonably declined.”