Politics
Supreme Court may sharply limit environmental impact statements that block energy development
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court may be about to sharply limit the reach of so-called environmental impact statements, which gauge potential harm caused by new developments and can often block or scale back large projects.
For more than 50 years, federal law has required agencies to take a hard and broad look at the “reasonably foreseeable environmental effects” of a building or development project before approving it.
The justices sounded ready on Tuesday to reconsider that approach in a case involving a proposed 88-mile railroad line in Utah that would allow crude oil to be shipped to refineries on the Gulf Coast.
“Focus on the project,” argued Paul Clement, a Washington attorney representing county governments in support of the project. He urged justices to consider only the direct impact of the rail line’s construction, and not potential secondary impacts that are “remote in time and space.”
In their comments and questions, the justices appeared to agree.
If so, their ruling could rein in the reach of environmental impact statements, an outcome that would be welcomed by developers and condemned by environmentalists.
Three years ago, the Surface Transportation Board, the federal agency which regulates freight railroads, approved the construction of the Utah rail project
But it did not weigh the environmental impact of drilling new oil wells in northeastern Utah, the extra air pollution at the refineries on the Gulf or the danger of sending nine more trains per day along the Colorado River and through the Rockies.
Environmentalists sued along with Eagle County, Colo., and won a ruling from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last year that said the board had failed to consider the “upstream and downstream” impacts on the environment.
The seven Utah counties appealed, arguing the D.C. court had gone too far.
Eight justices appeared to agree that decision should be reversed.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Colorado native who is a friend of billionaire Philip Anschutz, said last week that he would not participate in the decision. Anschutz is not a party to the case, but the Anschutz Exploration Group, which produces oil and gas in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief which urged the court to limit the law’s focus to environmental effects that are under the direct control of an agency.
Clement, who represented the seven Utah counties, said the court should rein in the “bloated and anti-development” impact statements that range too broadly.
He said it made sense for the federal board to consider the railroad’s potential impact on the bighorn sheep in the area, but not “imponderables,” such as a potential rail accident hundreds of miles away or extra air pollution on the Gulf Coast.
The Center for Biological Diversity, which sued to challenge the Utah railroad, said environmental impact statements have been crucial to protecting the environment since the early 1970s. It said agencies have been on notice “to consider whether their actions will have long-term, and potentially irreversible, environmental effects.”
These impact statements permit the government and the public to weigh the harms as well as the benefits of a new development.
Wendy Park, an attorney at the center, said “communities in the Uinta Basin and the Gulf Coast will suffer the most from this oil railroad, while oil companies enrich themselves at the expense of the environment and people’s health. It’s disgraceful the railroad’s backers want federal agencies to turn a blind eye to those harms.”
Politics
House Democrats challenge new Homeland Security order limiting lawmaker visits to immigration facilities
WASHINGTON — Twelve House Democrats who last year sued the Trump administration over a policy limiting congressional oversight of immigrant detention facilities returned to federal court Monday to challenge a second, new policy imposing further limits on such unannounced visits.
In December, those members of Congress won their lawsuit challenging a Department of Homeland Security policy from June that required a week’s notice from lawmakers before an oversight visit. Now they’re accusing Homeland Security of having “secretly reimposed” the requirement last week.
In a Jan. 8 memorandum, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote that “Facility visit requests must be made a minimum of seven (7) calendar days in advance. Any requests to shorten that time must be approved by me.”
The lawmakers who challenged the policies are led by Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) and include five members from California: Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles), Raul Ruiz (D-Indio) and Norma Torres (D-Pomona).
Last summer, as immigration raids spread through Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California, many Democrats including those named in the lawsuit were denied entry to local detention facilities. Before then, unannounced inspections had been a common, long-standing practice under congressional oversight powers.
“The duplicate notice policy is a transparent attempt by DHS to again subvert Congress’s will…and this Court’s stay of DHS’s oversight visit policy,” the plaintiffs wrote in a federal court motion Monday requesting an emergency hearing.
On Saturday, three days after Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, three members of Congress from Minnesota attempted to conduct an oversight visit of an ICE facility near Minneapolis. They were denied access.
Afterward, lawyers for Homeland Security notified the lawmakers and the court of the new policy, according to the court filing.
In a joint statement, the plaintiffs wrote that “rather than complying with the law, the Department of Homeland Security is attempting to get around this order by re-imposing the same unlawful policy.”
“This is unacceptable,” they said. “Oversight is a core responsibility of Members of Congress, and a constitutional duty we do not take lightly. It is not something the executive branch can turn on or off at will.”
Congress has stipulated in yearly appropriations packages since 2020 that funds may not be used to prevent a member of Congress “from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.”
That language formed the basis of the decision last month by U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, who found that lawmakers cannot be denied entry for visits “unless and until” the government could show that no appropriations money was being used to operate detention facilities.
In her policy memorandum, Noem wrote that funds from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which supplied roughly $170 billion toward immigration and border enforcement, are not subject to the limitations of the yearly appropriations law.
“ICE must ensure that this policy is implemented and enforced exclusively with money appropriated by OBBBA,” Noem said.
Noem said the new policy is justified because unannounced visits pull ICE officers away from their normal duties. “Moreover, there is an increasing trend of replacing legitimate oversight activities with circus-like publicity stunts, all of which creates a chaotic environment with heightened emotions,” she wrote.
The lawmakers, in the court filing, argued it’s clear that the new policy violates the law.
“It is practically impossible that the development, promulgation, communication, and implementation of this policy has been, and will be, accomplished — as required — without using a single dollar of annually appropriated funds,” they wrote.
Politics
Video: Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments
new video loaded: Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments
transcript
transcript
Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments
Minnesota and Illinois filed federal lawsuits against the Trump administration, claiming that the deployment of immigration agents to the Minneapolis and Chicago areas violated states’ rights.
-
This is, in essence, a federal invasion of the Twin Cities and Minnesota, and it must stop. We ask the courts to end the D.H.S. unlawful behavior in our state. The intimidation, the threats, the violence. We ask the courts to end the tactics on our places of worship, our schools, our courts, our marketplaces, our hospitals and even funeral homes.
By Jackeline Luna
January 12, 2026
Politics
Rep Ro Khanna demands prosecution of ICE agent in Minneapolis fatal shooting
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., called for the arrest and prosecution of the ICE agent who fatally shot Renee Good in a residential neighborhood of Minneapolis, Minnesota on Jan. 7.
Khanna also urged Congress to back his legislation with Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, to require ICE agents to wear body cameras, display visible identification, stop wearing masks during operations and be subject to independent oversight.
In a post shared on X, the former Obama administration official said: “I am calling for the arrest and prosecution of the ICE agent that shot and killed Renee Good.”
“I am also calling on Congress to support my bill with @JasmineForUS to force ICE agents to wear body cameras, not wear masks, have visible identification, and ensure ICE has independent oversight,” Khanna added.
MINNESOTA BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION DROPS OUT OF ICE-INVOLVED SHOOTING INVESTIGATION
An ICE agent shot and killed the 37-year-old Minneapolis woman during a federal enforcement operation in south Minneapolis. Federal officials have said agents were attempting to make arrests when the woman tried to use her vehicle as a weapon against officers, prompting an ICE agent to fire in self-defense.
Good’s death sparked widespread protests in Minneapolis and across the U.S. as demonstrators called for changes to federal immigration enforcement.
Renee Nicole Good moments before she was shot and killed by a federal agent in Minneapolis. (Obtained by Fox News)
Local officials, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, criticized the federal account of the incident and rejected the claim that the officer acted in self-defense. Minnesota has since sued the Trump administration, claiming the immigration enforcement surge in the state is “unlawful” and “unprecedented.”
“What we are seeing right now is not normal immigration enforcement,” Frey said. “The scale is wildly disproportionate, and it has nothing to do with keeping people safe.”
The Trump administration pushed back sharply against the lawsuit, with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accusing Minnesota leaders of undermining public safety and obstructing federal law enforcement.
MINNESOTA SUES TRUMP ADMIN OVER SWEEPING IMMIGRATION RAIDS IN TWIN CITIES
Federal officials, including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, maintained that the agent fired in self-defense.
Renee Good’s crashed car after the shooting. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
Noem critisized Democrats on Sunday amid an Illinois lawmaker’s push to impeach her following the deadly shooting.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“These law enforcement officers are trained to be in situations that are dangerous, and they rely on that training each and every day to make the right decisions,” Noem said during “Sunday Morning Futures.”
Fox News Digital’s Greg Wehner contributed to this report.
-
Detroit, MI1 week ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology1 week agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Montana3 days agoService door of Crans-Montana bar where 40 died in fire was locked from inside, owner says
-
Delaware4 days agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Dallas, TX5 days agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Dallas, TX1 week agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Iowa7 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Virginia3 days agoVirginia Tech gains commitment from ACC transfer QB