Environmental Law: NEPA

Written by Thomas Howald, Jakob Tawney

Edited by Erin Riley

Background

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), signed into law in 1970 by President Richard Nixon, is often called the "Magna Carta (great charter)" of U.S environmental law. Much like the original Magna Carta, signed into law in England in 1215, it establishes individual rights and the principles of limited government. NEPA established a groundbreaking framework requiring federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of their actions before making decisions. Passed during a period of heightened public concern over pollution, resource extraction, and unchecked development. 

This period including the Santa Barbara Oil spill in 1969 and great pollution in the great lakes of sewage dumping. Then NEPA introduced procedural requirements designed to promote transparency, public participation, and informed decision-making rather than mandating specific environmental outcomes. Central to the law are two major tools: the Environmental Assessment (EA), a preliminary evaluation to determine whether a more extensive study is necessary, and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a detailed analysis required for major federal actions significantly affecting the environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was created within the Executive Office of the President to oversee implementation and ensure agencies complied with NEPA's mandates. In practice, NEPA has played a critical role in shaping how large-scale projects, particularly those involving public lands in the American West, proceed — projects like drilling, mining, and road building often require detailed environmental reviews and public comment periods.

Current Standing

Over time, criticisms emerged that NEPA reviews had become excessively lengthy and costly, especially as complex environmental analyses sometimes spanned several years. The CEQ issued major revisions in 2020 that were aimed at streamlining the process. The reforms sought to shorten review timelines, limit the consideration of indirect and cumulative impacts (such as the broader effects of fossil fuel extraction on climate change), and narrow the range of projects requiring environmental analysis. Supporters argued these changes would accelerate critical infrastructure and energy projects, particularly in rural areas dependent on such development, while critics warned that they could diminish community voices and overlook long-term environmental harms. Legal challenges to the 2020 revisions were filed by multiple groups including, environmental groups, Native American tribes and, multiple states. As of 2025, litigation remains ongoing in federal courts. The 2022 administration had moved to roll back parts of the 2020 rules, finalizing a first phase of updates to restore broader environmental review requirements, with a second phase still under development. Consequently, NEPA's regulatory framework remains in a period of transition, and the law continues to serve as a crucial but contested mechanism for balancing federal development goals with environmental stewardship.

The 2025 administration's rollback of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, is already reshaping how major infrastructure projects are reviewed across the country. By limiting the inclusion of cumulative impacts of climate change, and reducing public input on environmental changes, these new rules weaken one of the core tools communities have to fight environmental degradation before it happens. In the long term, this shift could lead to more projects with unchecked environmental consequences, especially in rural and tribal areas where residents rely on NEPA to raise concerns about pollution, water quality, and habitat destruction.

The issue of eliminating key parts of NEPA is not just a legal issue, it is about whether the federal government continues to treat environmental protection and public input as essential parts of the development process. Several lawsuits challenging the revised NEPA rules are still pending, and the verdicts will be crucial in determining whether environmental law in the U.S. still has a place in development.