The Supreme Court limits the authority of judges to block infrastructure projects on environmental concerns

The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the authority of the judges to block infrastructure projects due to environmental problems.

The nine judges handed the lonely decision on Thursday morning, slightly slowing down the judicial authority at a time when the administration of President Donald Trump complains aloud for alleged court improvement. The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, is related to the National Law of Environmental Policy (NEPA) and the requirement of environmental impact statements (EIS) in infrastructure projects supported by the federal government.

“The NEPA does not allow the courts”, under the court of court review “of the Agency, the compliance with the NEPA, to delay or block the projects of the agency based on the environmental effects of other separate projects of the current project,” Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the court’s opinion.

“The courts should pay a substantial deference and should not micromece these agency options as long as they are within a large reasonable area,” the opinion continued.

The Trump Administration asks the Supreme Court to review El Salvador’s deportation flight case

Kavanaugh stated that agencies should not be expected to take into account the environmental impact of any project apart from what they are currently working on, “even if” environmental impacts “could be extended outside the geographical territory of the project or will materialize later in time.”

“The fact that the project may lead to construction or the greater use of a separate project does not mean that the agency must consider that the separate environmental effects of the project,” said the court.

Thursday’s decision was an 8-0 ruling, and Judge Neil Gorsuch did not make any part in the case. Judge in Chief John Roberts and Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett joined with the opinion of Kavanaugh.

The members of the Supreme Court are in a group photo in the Capitol Supreme Court building on Friday, October 7, 2022 in Washington, DC Bottom Row, on the left, associated justice Sonia Sotomayor, the associated justice Clarence Thomas, the chief of the United States John Roberts, the associated justice Samuel Alito and the associated justice Elena Kagan. Top Row, on the left, associated justice Amy Coney Barrett, associated justice Neil Gorsuch, associated justice Brett Kavanaugh and associated justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post through Getty Images)

In the meantime, justice Sonia Sotomayor presented a separate concurrent opinion, which joined the justice Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Trump, with a story in the main construction projects, has repeatedly complained about the environmental impact statements and the locks they can cause.

The number of injunctions that stop Trump Trump policies the predecessors by double

Republicans have also widely criticized what they see as a court overcoming in federal judges that unilaterally block important aspects of Trump’s agenda.

“Universal orders are an unconstitutional abuse of the judiciary,” said Senator Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judicial Committee, at Fox News Digital News earlier this month.

“Last week, a DC district judge issued a universal order that blocked the president’s executive order, which required the identification of voters or the citizen’s proof before voting in the national elections,” he continued. “Judges are not policymakers.”

Click here to get the Fox News app

The Supreme Court is studying the wide use of universal orders in a separate case that will be delivered in the coming weeks.