🏅 Top traders

NYTimes and most major outlets (eg, CNN) covered this SCOTUS case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-975_m648.pdf

This seems like it counts? It explicitly narrows the scope of NEPA reviews and delegates more authority to agency interpretations.

Also State of Iowa v. CEQ was covered in some major outlets too: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/white-house-environmental-office-lacks-rulemaking-authority-judge-rules-2025-02-04/

@Sketchy “passed into law by Congress”

@Panfilo “A court decision that substantially changes the scope of NEPA resolves to yes.”

@Sketchy Fair point. The CEQ case was specific to enforcability of rules for air tour plans of national parks, and moved the market to about 50/50. Do you think that would be "substantial" by itself or were you focusing more on the first point re: the October 2024 SCOTUS case, which I can look more into.

@Panfilo I think the first decision, seven county infra vs. eagle county, is the clearest and most obvious YES resolution.

@Sketchy Okay, interested to hear what @jdilla thinks about the case, and whether the ruling on deference was a historic reduction or a more recent clarification. It was a unanimous decision, so I imagine it wasn't controversial either way.

@Panfilo I think it far and above clears the bar of "credible news organization that covers the reform" - "substantial" is the criteria, not "historic".

@Sketchy Seven County v. Eagle County isn't reforming NEPA, it's just affirming the pre-existing proximate-cause scope that already existed by reversing a lower court's decision that deviated from it. Previous SC decisions like Dept. of Transportation v. Public Citizen and Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy already established the proximate-cause cause doctrine as precedent.

@Sketchy A substantial reform would be if Seven County v. Eagle County had altered the proximate-cause doctrine, not reaffirmed it

@spiderduckpig again, the definition of substantial given is coverage in major outlets, which this easily clears - every single outlet I’ve checked has at least one article on it, sometimes several.

Regardless, I also do not believe you are at all correct that the case simply reaffirms preexisting practice. That is not how the case is described in any outlet I’ve seen. All the coverage points towards multiple new restrictions of coverage and a significantly higher bar for litigation.

ChatGPT even uses the word substantial unprompted when asked: https://chatgpt.com/share/6951d1fe-8874-8011-a803-8af3fb53f298

FWIW, I think several of the end of year markets I’ve bet up recently have multiple defensible interpretations and could reasonably be resolved either way. This is not one of them - it seems extremely clear to me this should resolve YES.

@Sketchy

The actual Supreme Court ruling itself repeatedly and clearly expresses that it is reversing a circuit court decision that deviated from the norm. It is not establishing a new rule or guideline, it is reversing a decision that deviated from the guideline. This is implicitly supported by Michael Hendricks' comment signaling that they updated slightly towards YES after the circuit court's decision, because it would have indeed been a substantial reform had the circuit court's decision been upheld. Instead, it was struck down.

>The Board’s environmental review [using the limited scope reaffirmed by Seven County v. Eagle County] of the Uinta Basin Railway followed standard [emphasis mine] NEPA procedures

Sotomayor writes:

>Accordingly, I write separately to explain why the result in this case follows inexorably from our precedent.

The actual opinion describes itself as reiterating precedent, not establishing new guidelines. The fact that it was a unanimous decision, and that liberal justices like Sotomayor describe this ruling as directly following from precedent even further supports this, because it demonstrates that this ruling was not some heavily partisan anti-environmental action, but a bipartisan reiteration of existing rules.

@spiderduckpig I don't consider ChatGPT as a good source of truth here, here are ChatGPT 5.2 chatlogs that support my point as an example: https://chatgpt.com/share/6951e588-a890-800c-bbc7-cced05e44c2d, https://chatgpt.com/share/6951e3e3-5e3c-800c-bde8-87fcd4dbee8c

Gemini: https://gemini.google.com/share/9b4e32fd6fa2

@spiderduckpig Of course, everything is up to @jdilla 's discretion.

@spiderduckpig The reason SCOTUS took this case, to my understanding, is a range of opinions within lower courts on how to adjudicate NEPA. SCOTUS resolves that to a single opinion, which of course has precedent - that’s generally how these cases work. But many NEPA cases were tried and won or settled based on other interpretations that will now lose (or not exist to begin with), and so in practice this ruling changes how NEPA will operate, and what kind of teeth the law will have in court.

Again, this is academic given the media coverage. The chatbot logs you give with the copy-pasted discussion seem not to understand that the blurb at the top (the market description) is authoritative wrt the definition of substantial, I wonder if they would update if told so.

But yea agree it’s up to @jdilla. Would love you to weigh in when you have a chance.

@Sketchy

>I am confused what to make about the argument that the decision is based on precedent (a feature of the vast majority of cases ever?)

The Supreme Court cases leading up to Seven County show an unbroken line of precedent and doctrine, with the recent ruling specifically using the wording of "reiterate and clarify," showing that it is simply restating earlier case law. This is substantively different from, as an example, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo where the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference doctrine. That was another case related to environmental laws dealing with the discretion given to federal agencies. That case invoked precedent, but it also substantially modified another precedent by modifying a longstanding doctrine, so it certainly qualifies as a substantial reform.

>But many NEPA cases were tried and won or settled based on other interpretations that will now lose (or not exist to begin with), and so in practice this ruling changes how NEPA will operate, and what kind of teeth the law will have in court.

Lower court drift being reined in by the Supreme Court seems more like evidence that the status quo ante is being restored, not that the law has been reformed. If there is a longstanding doctrine, a lower court misinterprets it, and then the Supreme Court corrects that, that is not a substantial reform. Some media might characterize this as reform because they focus on the contrast between circuit-level practice and the Supreme Court’s interpretation, but legally speaking the Court’s position is that there has been a single doctrine the whole time.

@spiderduckpig still doing my homework but this seems persuasive to me:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County marks a pivotal moment in the application of NEPA, reinforcing the principle of judicial deference and clarifying the scope of environmental reviews. Depending upon how agencies choose to exercise their discretion, this decision has the potential to speed up the federal approval of infrastructure projects, providing greater certainty and predictability for project developers and regulatory agencies alike.

https://www.saul.com/insights/alert/scotus-deference-nepa

@spiderduckpig

[me] I am confused...

Yea sorry, I edited this away because it seemed unnecessarily combative and I do get your point even if I disagree. I think we basically agree on the state of the world, just not the result - if I can try to summarize in a way that's amenable to both of us:

• There is an "unbroken" line of doctrinal precedent that is consistent from SCOTUS on NEPA.

• Lower courts deviated from that precedent, requiring this recent decision to reaffirm it.

You believe the lower court decisions are a lower court change, not a NEPA change, so the SCOTUS decision does not alter NEPA and therefore is not a change (substantial or otherwise). I believe that this decision alters how NEPA will operate in practice, and is therefore a NEPA change.

(departing from what I think you'll agree with) The reason I find my side more persuasive is that "platonic legal jurisprudence" is uninteresting to me - in the real world, this decision alters how NEPA works. That's also the framing adopted by the new coverage I've seen.

That (to me) is a steelman - I also think there are sections of the decision that will change even how "in line" lower courts apply NEPA, and certainly how agencies/lawyers deal with lawsuit threats.

updating slightly towards YES after yesterday's circuit court decision about CEQ and NEPA

What if the change comes from a court decision? Will this resolve NO?

@wilsonkime A court decision that substantially changes the scope of NEPA resolves to yes.

This one has new relevance now