Judge Rules CEQ Overstepped, Invalidates 2024 Environmental Review Rule

February 5, 2025

A recent decision by North Dakota federal judge Dan Traynor has sent ripples through the environmental regulatory landscape. Judge Traynor concluded that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), established by Congress in 1969, has been exercising regulatory authority beyond its intended advisory role. This decision arose from a lawsuit spearheaded by 21 Republican-led states, challenging a 2024 regulation that amended the environmental review process for federal projects.

Historical Context of CEQ’s Regulatory Authority

Origins and Intended Role of CEQ

The CEQ was created by Congress in 1969 with the primary purpose of advising the President on environmental policy and ensuring federal agencies comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, its role began to shift in the late 1970s following an executive order by President Jimmy Carter, which granted the CEQ regulatory powers. Initially, the CEQ’s mandate was to oversee the integration of environmental considerations into federal decision-making processes and provide annual reports on the state of the environment to the President.

Over time, the CEQ’s influence expanded largely due to subsequent administrations utilizing the Council to achieve broader environmental goals. This included setting regulations and policies that covered a wide range of environmental issues, from managing natural resources to addressing pollution. While the CEQ’s actions often aligned with the overarching goals of NEPA, the extension of regulatory powers was not explicitly outlined in the initial legislative framework, setting the stage for ongoing disputes about the extent of its authority.

Judicial Precedents and Misconceptions

Judge Traynor’s ruling emphasized that the CEQ’s historical regulatory actions are unlawful, spotlighting a critical precedent that challenges longstanding practices. This decision builds on a precedent set late last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which found that the CEQ lacks the power to issue rules. Traynor highlighted the continuous assumption across all three branches of government regarding the CEQ’s regulatory authority, stating, “The truth is that for the past 40 years all three branches of government operated under the erroneous assumption that CEQ had authority.”

Traynor’s ruling serves as a wake-up call for lawmakers and administrative bodies alike. It not only questions the historical regulatory actions taken by the CEQ but also implicates a broader range of regulatory practices potentially grounded in similarly flawed assumptions. The decision underscores the need for a more explicit legislative mandate when delineating the boundaries of agency authority, resonating with the broader judicial trend towards scrutinizing the supposed autonomy of federal agencies in crafting policies that carry the weight of law.

The 2024 Rule and Its Implications

Overview of the 2024 Rule

The 2024 rule introduced new requirements for the environmental review process for federally funded and permitted projects. The plaintiff states argued that these requirements were onerous, unnecessary, and detrimental to important infrastructure projects. They also criticized the rules for over-emphasizing climate change and environmental justice in the review process. Advocates of the 2024 rule maintained that the changes were necessary to address growing environmental challenges and ensure thorough evaluations that account for long-term sustainability impacts of federal projects.

The specifics of the 2024 rule included stricter guidelines for project approvals, extended review timelines, and additional criteria aimed at assessing environmental justice implications, such as the potential disproportionate impact on marginalized communities. By broadening the scope of environmental considerations, the rule had intended to create a more holistic and preventative approach to environmental governance. However, critics argued that the additional layers of bureaucracy could hinder timely project completions, particularly for infrastructure developments deemed critical for economic growth.

Legal Challenge and Ruling

The lawsuit, led by 21 Republican-led states, did not request the nullification of all CEQ regulations but focused solely on the 2024 rule. Judge Traynor’s ruling ultimately struck down the 2024 regulation, reinstating the 2020 regulation. This decision followed a January executive order by President Donald Trump that rescinded the CEQ’s rulemaking authority and directed the rollback of its regulations. Traynor’s rationale hinged on the assertion that while the CEQ could advise and coordinate compliance with NEPA, the step into regulatory power was beyond its constitutionally permissible role.

The reinstatement of the 2020 regulation marked a significant rollback to an era with less stringent environmental scrutiny, which opponents argue undermines the progress needed to address contemporary environmental crises. This ruling effectively curtailed the CEQ’s ability to enforce comprehensive environmental reviews, pushing the regulatory landscape back towards a framework that prioritizes expeditious project approvals over environmental considerations. This has profound implications for how future federal projects will balance economic development with environmental stewardship.

Reactions and Impacts

Support from Plaintiff States

Attorney General Wrigley of North Dakota celebrated the ruling, stating it was beneficial for both the state’s and the country’s economic and infrastructure development. The plaintiff states included Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kentucky, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, South Carolina, Kansas, Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Texas, and Alaska. These states largely argued that overly stringent environmental regulations hinder economic growth and delay critical infrastructure projects.

The plaintiff states maintained that the CEQ’s stringent requirements under the 2024 rule placed an unnecessary burden on project developers, potentially stifling job creation and economic growth. They highlighted examples where prolonged environmental reviews had delayed key infrastructure projects, including transportation networks and energy production facilities. The ruling was heralded as a victory for states seeking a balance between regulatory oversight and developmental imperatives, asserting that creating a more favorable climate for investment and growth was paramount.

Opposition from Defending States and Advocacy Groups

On the opposing side, 13 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, and several advocacy groups defended the CEQ. They argued that its work is crucial for implementing NEPA and protecting public health and the environment. These defendants contended that the 2024 rule replaced a weaker regulation from the Trump administration in 2020. The states in opposition included California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Colorado, Michigan, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Wisconsin.

Environmental advocacy groups underscored the importance of strengthened environmental reviews, particularly in an era of escalating climate change impacts. They emphasized that robust review processes are essential to prevent environmental degradation and safeguard vulnerable communities from disproportionate harms. Organizations such as Earthjustice argued that the ruling strips away essential mechanisms that ensure federal projects do not exacerbate environmental injustices or contribute to pollution. The opposition expressed concerns that weakening environmental reviews could lead to more haphazard and potentially harmful development practices.

Broader Implications for Environmental Regulation

Judicial Scrutiny of Agency Powers

Traynor’s decision represents an overarching trend of judicial scrutiny towards longstanding assumptions of agency powers, especially concerning environmental regulations. It reflects the broader judicial and political environment favoring clear legislative mandates over administrative actions perceived as exceeding authority. This ruling aligns with a series of judicial decisions aimed at reining in administrative agencies that have expanded their purview based on interpretive leeway granted by previous executive orders or legislation.

By calling into question the implicit regulatory powers assumed by the CEQ, the ruling prompts a broader reconsideration of the scope and limits of administrative authority. It sends a signal to other federal agencies and regulatory bodies to reassess their own rulemaking capacity and align it more closely with explicit legislative directives. The decision underscores the necessity for statutory clarity and legislative action to delineate the precise boundaries of agency authority, paving the way for a more predictable and transparent regulatory environment.

Tension Between Economic and Environmental Interests

The dispute encapsulates the tension between economic developmental interests and environmental protection efforts. This ruling highlights the complex interplay between state and federal regulations, underscoring the necessity for clear legislative direction to empower regulatory bodies. Proponents of economic development argue that streamlined environmental reviews are essential for maintaining competitive advantage and expediting critical infrastructure projects, which are vital for economic growth and stability.

Conversely, environmental advocates stress that shortcutting comprehensive reviews undermines long-term sustainability goals and risks exacerbating environmental issues. The back-and-forth between regulatory stringency and developmental freedom reflects broader ideological divides about the role of regulation in economic policy. This tension persists as a central theme in environmental policy debates, influencing legislative priorities and administrative practices aimed at balancing growth with environmental stewardship.

Concerns from Environmental Advocates

Environmental advocates and organizations such as Earthjustice have expressed concern over the ruling. The environmental law group, representing some co-defendants, stated that this ruling strips away essential environmental regulations, potentially weakening environmental reviews and harming communities already grappling with pollution. Jan Hasselman, an attorney for Earthjustice, emphasized that the ruling could signal problems for other Trump administration executive orders that rolled back environmental regulations.

Environmental groups warn that the erosion of environmental review standards could have far-reaching consequences, particularly for communities historically burdened by pollution and environmental hazards. Advocates argue that a robust framework for environmental review is critical for holding projects accountable to high standards of sustainability and community health. The ruling, they contend, sets a concerning precedent that might embolden further rollbacks of regulatory protections, jeopardizing efforts to combat climate change and safeguard vulnerable populations.

Legislative and Policy Considerations

Congressional Role in Clarifying Authority

Traynor conveyed that if Congress disagreed with the CEQ’s rulemaking actions, it had ample opportunity over the past decades to enact clarifying legislation. He reasoned that Congress needs to pass specific legislation if it intends to grant the CEQ rulemaking authority. This interpretation underscores the constitutional principle of separation of powers, highlighting Congress’s role in explicitly defining the scope and limits of agency functions to prevent overreach.

Traynor’s ruling calls for legislative intervention to provide clear guidance on the intended role of administrative agencies in the regulatory landscape. This could pave the way for comprehensive legislative reforms that address ambiguities in the statutory framework governing environmental regulation. By reinforcing the need for legislative clarity, the ruling promotes a more structured approach to policy-making, reducing reliance on executive discretion and enhancing accountability.

Current State of Environmental Regulation

A recent ruling by North Dakota federal judge Dan Traynor has created significant waves in the field of environmental regulation. Judge Traynor determined that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), founded by Congress in 1969, has been exceeding its intended advisory responsibilities. This decision emerged from a lawsuit initiated by 21 states led by Republicans, which contested a 2024 regulation that modified the environmental review process for federal projects. The CEQ was initially set up to offer recommendations and guidance on environmental matters, but over time, its role has seemingly expanded to exert regulatory power, which was not the original intent of Congress. The lawsuit scrutinized whether the 2024 regulation fell within the scope of the CEQ’s authority. Judge Traynor’s ruling has thus brought renewed attention to the limitations of agencies and the extent to which they can wield regulatory influence. This development may prompt further evaluations of other federal agencies’ roles and powers in environmental and other governmental processes.

Subscribe to our weekly news digest.

Join now and become a part of our fast-growing community.

Invalid Email Address
Thanks for Subscribing!
We'll be sending you our best soon!
Something went wrong, please try again later