A legal fight over an 88-mile proposed railway in Utah has set the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide how federal agencies evaluate the environmental impacts of projects requiring their approval, a decision with the potential to drastically shift how projects are permitted across the nation.
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, on Tuesday, Dec. 10. It’s the latest development following a U.S. Court of Appeals decision last year that overturned a federal agency’s approval of the railway after a lawsuit from environmental groups and a Colorado county along the project’s path. The appeals court found that the review failed to evaluate the downstream impacts of the project.
A coalition of seven Utah counties appealed that decision, and the Supreme Court will now decide how far federal agencies can evaluate the impacts of a project under the National Environmental Policy Act—in this case, the immediate area of an 88-mile railway or beyond.
The Uinta Basin Railway would connect the oil fields of northeastern Utah to the national rail network running directly alongside the Colorado River for more than 100 miles as it makes its way to refineries on the Gulf Coast. If built, the new railway could quadruple the production of the region’s waxy crude oil. Supporters argue it would revitalize the region’s economy, but opponents say it would worsen the region’s already poor air quality, affecting locals and those downstream, including in neighboring Colorado and along the Gulf Coast, where the crude oil will be refined.
Advertisement
“The primary beneficiaries of the railway would be a handful of CEOs of oil companies who have already manipulated Utah lawmakers into giving them public subsidies, whose objective is to exhaust this unique oil resource as fast as they can, to make as much money as fast as they can,” said Dr. Brian Moench, president of the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, one of the groups opposing the project. “The cost, literally and figuratively, would be borne by everyone else and future generations.”
The Supreme Court’s decision will not determine the final fate of the railway. The appeals court ruling found that the federal Surface Transportation Board in its permitting of the project also violated the Endangered Species Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. What the high court’s decision will do, however, is likely to dictate the scope of NEPA analyses for years to come. Weighing in to try to shape that opinion is a growing chorus of industry groups, state attorneys general, law professors and advocacy groups.
Signed into law in 1970, NEPA is the nation’s bedrock environmental law, requiring federal agencies “to use all practicable means and measures … to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.” NEPA set forth the requirements to evaluate a project’s environmental impacts through documents known as environmental impact statements.
But the law has been at the center of debate for years, especially in talks of permitting reform from Congress. Any substantial project overseen or regulated by the federal government must undergo a NEPA review, a process that can take years and often opens up projects to litigation. Supporters of the law argue it is critical to stopping bad projects and mitigating problems other projects may bring, while opponents argue its requirements are too cumbersome, especially regarding the nation’s energy transition. Many on both sides agree change is needed, though they dispute how to do so.
“Seven Counties goes to the heart of environmental impact analyses,” said John Ruple, a law professor and program director at the University of Utah’s Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources and the Environment. “No one likes long and expensive environmental reviews, but environmental reviews are there to protect the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink. They make disasters like Love Canal less likely. There are plenty of ways to make NEPA work better without watering down protection in the name of efficiency.”
Advertisement
He likened the case to a car coming to a stop at an intersection. “All agree that the driver must stop, look left and then look right before deciding whether to proceed,” he said. “The question is how far and how carefully the driver must look.”
The Uinta Basin Railway did not respond to a request for an interview. But officials from the groups behind the project, including Utah counties, have previously dismissed opponents’ concerns in interviews with Inside Climate News, saying the economic benefits are important for the rural community and the environmental issues raised were overblown.
“We are optimistic about the Supreme Court’s review and confident in the thorough environmental assessments conducted by the STB,” Keith Heaton, director of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, said in a press release. “This project is vital for the economic growth and connectivity of the Uinta Basin region, and we are committed to seeing it through.”
Opponents, however, see it as the latest example of the Supreme Court weighing in on cases that should be settled by Congress, and one that could have far-reaching environmental consequences, like the court’s decision earlier this year to overturn the Chevron Doctrine that gave agencies some deference when translating laws into regulations.
Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch recused himself from the railway case this week after pressure to step back due to his close connection to billionaire Philip F. Anschutz, who would economically benefit from the project. Though his companies are not directly parties to the lawsuit, one of his oil and gas exploration companies filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the justices to put limits on NEPA.
“It’s a perfect example of where the court is doing the dirty work for all of these industries that are interested in changing our environmental laws, reducing community input, limiting transparency into government decision making and making sure that the government puts blinders on before it actually makes big decisions like improving this railway,” said Sam Sankar, the senior vice president of programs at Earthjustice, a U.S.-based nonprofit that takes on environmental lawsuits.
Advertisement
Opponents: Railway Would Worsen Uinta Basin’s Poor Air Quality
The railway has been in the works since the 2014 formation of Utah’s Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, which is working with the Rio Grande Pacific Corp. and Drexel Hamilton Infrastructure Partners.
It has long faced opposition from local environmental groups critical of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from burning the oil and the risk of a derailment and spill into the Colorado River. Five groups and Colorado’s Eagle County sued the Surface Transportation Board after it approved the project. Eagle County, where the oil tankers would pass through, has won support for its fight from other Colorado counties as well as the state’s elected officials, led by U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet and U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse.
This story is funded by readers like you.
Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.
Donate Now
Advertisement
Communities across Colorado have already seen the destructive impacts of climate change, from flooding to wildfires. More oil production, Eagle County officials and environmentalists have said, will only worsen matters. They’re also worried about potential spills as the oil travels alongside the Colorado River. That river supplies water to 40 million people and is in a 20-year-long drought.
“We’re sitting here in the western United States watching increased wildfire activity, aridification, drought, all sorts of enormous environmental challenges that have huge human health consequences,” said Deeda Seed, a public lands senior campaigner for the Center for Biological Diversity. “The consequences of something like the Uinta Basin Railway need to be fully explored, and this was not done.”
The Uinta Basin, found in northeastern Utah, is already home to some of the worst air pollution in the state. An increase in oil production would only make that worse, railway opponents argue.
A 2014 study found that Uinta Basin emissions of volatile organic compounds—which can cause serious health consequences like cancer—accumulated to the equivalent of the annual VOC emissions of 100 million cars the previous winter. And oil and gas wells within the region have experienced far higher rates of methane leaks compared to the national average. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that is much more effective at warming the planet in the near-term than carbon dioxide.
That air pollution came under intense scrutiny during the 2010s, when a nurse midwife in Vernal, the main town within the basin, contacted Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment about the rising number of infant deaths. A state review of health department data showed more such deaths in the Uinta Basin than the national average in 2013, but the study suggested it was not statistically significant.
Advertisement
“Suppose the FDA were to only consider the public health consequences of manufacturing a drug, and not the good or ill effects on millions of people taking the drug. Any court would conclude that such a ruling would be a mockery of the purpose of the FDA,” said Moench, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment’s president. “If the EPA only considered the environmental consequences of constructing a coal-fired power plant and not the public health consequences of the lifetime emissions from operating the plant, any court could grasp the illogic and mockery of the Clean Air Act and question the very purpose of the EPA.
“The Surface Transportation board’s failure to consider any of the downstream consequences of building this railway is equally absurd, illogical, contrary to the public good, legally indefensible and a gaming of the system by special interests. Laws are supposed to make sense. The public has a right to think that they protect the public interest, not special interests.”
About This Story
Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.
Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.
Advertisement
Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?
Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.
Thank you,
Advertisement
Wyatt Myskow
Reporter, Phoenix
Wyatt Myskow covers drought, biodiversity and the renewable energy transition throughout the Western U.S. Based in Phoenix, he previously reported for The Arizona Republic and The Chronicle of Higher Education. Wyatt has lived in the Southwest since birth and graduated from Arizona State University with his bachelor’s degree in journalism.
SALT LAKE CITY — The presence of federal immigration agents tracking immigrants has increased in Salt Lake County-area courtrooms since mid-February as have complaints about how they’re carrying out their duties.
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents may have carried out operations at the Matheson Courthouse in Salt Lake City, according to Lacey Singleton, a public defender who’s regularly at the facility.
“Now it is like they are there all the time … They just basically hang out, and they’re either sitting in the courtroom, or they’re lurking in the hallways,” she said. They wear normal street garb, she said, but for regulars in the courtroom, “they stand out.”
Immigration enforcement action at courthouses around the country has become “a cornerstone” in the efforts of the administration of President Donald Trump to detain and deport immigrants in the country illegally, according to the American Immigration Council, an immigrant advocacy group. Since an arrest of one of Lacey’s clients around Feb. 12 or 13, she and others say, the practice has become more and more common in Utah.
Advertisement
ICE didn’t respond to a KSL query seeking comment, but the practice aligns with the Trump administration’s push to crack down on illegal immigration. Agency guidance notes that the people ICE seeks may appear in courthouses to address unrelated criminal and civil matters, and that such facilities are typically secure.
“Accordingly, when ICE engages in civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses, it can reduce safety risks to the public, targeted alien(s) and ICE officers and agents,” reads a May 27 memo on the matter.
Critics, though, say immigration agents’ efforts can be disruptive and could spur immigrants, otherwise trying to resolve their legal issues, to steer clear of court, jeopardizing their cases. As word spreads of the activity, it could also spur fearful immigrant witnesses and crime victims to steer clear of the legal system, Lacey worries.
Salt Lake County Sheriff Rosie Rivera brought the issue up at a Salt Lake County Council meeting on Tuesday, saying her office has received “multiple complaints” about ICE agents’ activity in Salt Lake County courthouses, where sheriff’s officials, serving as court bailiffs, provide security.
U.S. agents have ratcheted up immigration enforcement action at Utah courthouses, prompting criticism from some. The photo shows attorney Lacey Singleton, center, questioning a suspected agent recently at Matheson Courthouse in Salt Lake City. (Photo: Salt Lake City Bail Fund)
Part of the problem, she said, is that the agents typically wear plain clothes and don’t identify themselves, not even to bailiffs. Another issue relates to the actual process of taking an immigrant into custody, which Rivera says should occur outside of public view with the suspects’ lawyers present.
Advertisement
In one instance, she said, a bailiff heard a scuffle and thought someone was getting assaulted, only to find out it was ICE agents detaining somebody.
A bailiff and an ICE agent subsequently “got into a verbal altercation,” Rivera said. “We are addressing that issue, but I want you to understand, these deputies are put in a really tough situation, and in this situation, I understand how he could get to that point where he had no idea who they were, and he was trying to make sure that somebody wasn’t being assaulted at the time.”
Video from last week, posted to social media by the Salt Lake City Bail Fund, shows Lacey walking past a suspected immigration agent at the Matheson Courthouse, asking for identification but getting no reply. The Salt Lake City Bail Fund, critical of ICE activity, sends observers to the Matheson Courthouse to monitor the agency’s activity.
“That’s a problem because it’s like, who are you?” Lacey said. “For all I know, you’re some random dude who is just, like, off the street and participating in kidnapping people.”
Video supplied to KSL shows an incident outside Riverton Justice Court on Wednesday — four apparent immigration agents in plain clothes wrestling on the ground with an apparent suspect they were trying to take into custody.
Advertisement
“Don’t resist,” someone off-camera says in Spanish while filming the incident. “Son, don’t resist. Calm down. They’re going to hurt you more.”
The woman asks for his name and contact info after the agents cuff him and take him to a nearby car, while another man on the scene shouts at the officials and berates them. “You guys are disgusting,” the man says.
Anna Reganis, a public defender with the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association, like Lacey, said immigration agents detained a man at Salt Lake City Justice Court on Wednesday. She didn’t witness the actual detention, but heard the aftermath.
“All of a sudden, in my courtroom, we could hear from the lobby blood-curdling screams,” Reganis said. She went to the main lobby, finding a woman holding her infant baby “just inconsolably screaming and crying.” Turns out the woman had gone to the courthouse with her husband, and he had just been detained by immigration agents.
Read more:
Lacey maintains that the people the ICE agents seem to be pursuing aren’t the most hardened of criminals, which the Trump administration said would be the focus when the crackdown started. Reganis echoed that, noting that those with business in the Salt Lake City Justice Court face relatively minor offenses.
Advertisement
“Myself and my co-workers all had a bit of a wake-up call because we kept telling ourselves that this wasn’t going to happen at the justice court because all of our cases are class B and C misdemeanors and infractions,” she said.
The Salt Lake City Bail Fund launched training sessions late last year for volunteers to serve as courthouse observers, particularly at the Matheson Courthouse. Liz Maryon, who helps oversee the effort, foresees another round of training to get more help. “We’re currently working on expanding our capacity so that we can be there every day,” she said.
The Key Takeaways for this article were generated with the assistance of large language models and reviewed by our editorial team. The article, itself, is solely human-written.
SALT LAKE CITY — Iranians in Utah said Sunday they were celebrating and grateful for U.S. military action against Iran after nearly 47 years of the Islamic Republic regime.
They expressed hope for a future that might bring greater freedom to the people of that country.
“Thank you, Mr. Trump, for helping us,” said Kathy Vazirnejad as she sat inside Persian restaurant Zaferan Café. “The 21st of March is our New Year. For our New Year’s, we do exchange presents and I think President Trump gave us the best gift as any for this year in attacking this government and killing all of those people.”
Vazirnejad moved from Iran to Utah in 1984, graduated from the University of Utah, and obtained U.S. citizenship.
Advertisement
She said the regime was oppressive and “vicious.”
“They’re just a devil,” she said. “I mean, it’s a government that kills its own people.”
Though she has continued to return to Iran to visit family, she said those visits had become increasingly tense and uncertain, even though most Iranians opposed their own government.
“I have a dual citizenship, Persian passport and an American passport,” Vazirnejad explained. “It’s hard. Each time I go there to the airport, I’m showing them my Persian passport and I’m like, ‘Oh my gosh, if they see I’m very active in my social media against the government?’”
Numerous other Iranians shared similar stories of their departure from their homeland, including Ramin Arani, who once served for two years in the Iranian army at the age of 18.
Advertisement
“It was right after the Iran and Iraq war and I was part of the team that was cleaning the war zone basically in terms of unexploded shells and land mines and all that,” Arani explained. “I put my life on the line for the sake of my country, although I was not treated as a first-hand citizen.”
Arani said when he left Iran, he migrated to the U.S. and graduated from the University of Utah with an engineering degree.
“Every day, I appreciate the opportunity that was provided to me,” Arani said.
He said for decades, Iranians didn’t believe the day would come when much of the Islamic Republic’s leadership would be taken out in military strikes.
“I believe we are watching history unfolding,” Arani said. “Potentially, the course of history is about to change.”
Advertisement
What that change looks like exactly remains largely uncertain, though there has been much discussion about potential regime change or the Iranian people taking matters into their own hands.
“Regime change is, you know, a be-careful-what-you-wish-for,” said Amos Guiora, a University of Utah law professor and Middle East analyst with family in Israel. “I say, ‘regime change,’ I get the phrase, but how it comes about, time will tell.”
Guiora questioned how long the U.S. intended to stay involved and what the endgame truly is.
“There’s an expression in Hebrew, if I may—zbang ve’ga’mar’no—which means ‘it ends just like that’—that’s not how these things end and obviously there are political calculations,” Guiora said.
He said he feared for the potential loss of life if boots-on-the-ground are ultimately required.
Advertisement
“(If) any of these things turn into a war of attrition, that would be horrible,” Guiora said.
Guiora, however, said he saw the obvious benefit of different leadership in Iran.
“You know, a shah-like Iran that would not be focused on the support of terrorist organizations and committing acts of terrorism—I think that would be a win-win for the world,” Guiora said.
Arani said if regime change does happen in Iran, he would like to see a constitutional monarchy take root like those in Great Britain and elsewhere in Europe.
“Sweden, Norway, these are all systems that are democratic, or I call them semi-democratic and they still have a monarch, which is a continuation of their culture,” Arani said.
Advertisement
Arani talked of the rich and proud long history of Iran, dating back thousands of years, and he believed there is much of that to share with the world today.
“The culture of Iran that is hidden underneath the layers of history I’m talking about, it’s all about light,” Arani said. “Iranian culture, the real one I’m talking about, is all about appreciating life, not ‘death to this,’ ‘death to that.’”
Vazirnejad believed as many as “85 percent” of Iranians supported the return of the shah’s family to Iran to lead, and she predicted a future where Iran is a partner with the U.S. and Israel.
She suspected that maybe one in five Iranians who left Iran because of the regime might consider returning permanently to the country under new leadership.
“It’s going to be very good,” she said. “Hopefully, we are celebrating the New Year with (the Islamic Republic) gone and hopefully by next year, the New Year’s 21st of March, we all go back to Iran, at least to visit.”
George returned from a right ankle sprain that kept him out six straight games.
(Rick Egan | The Salt Lake Tribune) The crowd reacts as Utah Jazz guard Keyonte George (3) hits a 3-point shot at the Delta Center this season.
Utah Jazz coach Will Hardy didn’t need to see much from his young point guard in his return.
“Making shots, missing shots, it’s not anything that’s in question for me,” Hardy said about Keyonte George. “I just want to see him exert himself physically and competitively.”
In that case, mission accomplished.
Advertisement
After missing nine games in the last month with two different ankle sprains, George returned against the Pelicans on Saturday.
The Jazz lost 115-105.
George’s numbers were fine, scoring 17 points on 4-of-11 shooting in 23 minutes. But Hardy saw enough mobility from George to make him comfortable moving forward.
(Rick Egan | The Salt Lake Tribune) Utah Jazz Center Mo Bamba sits next to Keyonte George and Jazz forward Jaren Jackson Jr. on the bench in NBA action between the Utah Jazz and the New Orleans Pelicans at the Delta Center on Thursday, Feb. 26, 2026.
“I thought he made some athletic plays in small spaces. I was more concerned with his willingness to slam on the brakes,” Hardy said. “And I thought he had a couple possessions where he did, where he really pushed it athletically.
Advertisement
“He’s like any player, he’s frustrated. He feels like he should have made a few more shots,” he continued. “But that’s not what I was watching.”
George was on a restriction of 20-24 minutes and he wants to be cautious in the days ahead. Utah plays Denver on Monday before heading on the road.
“Feet are the most precious thing for any athlete. So I want to make sure I feel good, not feeling off balance or nothing like that,” George said. “Just want to be cautious with the ankle injuries and stuff like that.”
But for his return, it was good enough.
“I feel like my pop was there. I didn’t want to force anything,” he finished. “I just wanted to play the game. I feel like I did a decent job tonight.”
Advertisement
For over 150 years, The Salt Lake Tribune has been Utah’s independent news source. Our reporters work tirelessly to uncover the stories that matter most to Utahns, from unraveling the complexities of court rulings to allowing tax payers to see where and how their hard earned dollars are being spent. This critical work wouldn’t be possible without people like you—individuals who understand the importance of local, independent journalism. As a nonprofit newsroom, every subscription and every donation fuels our mission, supporting the in-depth reporting that shines a light on the is sues shaping Utah today.
