125 F.4th 1170
D.C. Cir.2025Background
- In 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a rule allowing liquefied natural gas (LNG) transport by rail in specially designed tank cars, without prior permit requirements.
- PHMSA asserted the rule would not significantly impact the environment and did not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
- Environmental groups, multiple states, and the Puyallup Tribe challenged the rule, arguing it posed serious safety and environmental risks and PHMSA's assessment was inadequate under NEPA.
- The final rule introduced some changes over the proposal, including reinforced tank car requirements and operating controls but did not cap the number of cars per train or impose a mandatory speed limit.
- The rule was later suspended pending new rulemaking, but potential reinstatement (June 2025) kept the dispute live for judicial review.
- The DC Circuit Court found the case ripe, not moot, and that all petitioners (environmental, state, Tribe) had standing due to demonstrated or imminent harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did PHMSA violate NEPA by failing to prepare an EIS for the LNG by rail rule? | NEPA required an EIS due to risks from high-consequence, low-probability LNG derailments and prior tank car safety record. | EA found only low-probability accidents; safety measures mitigated risks; impact not significant, so no EIS needed. | Yes, PHMSA acted arbitrarily under NEPA by not preparing an EIS. |
| Is the case justiciable despite rule suspension (ripeness/mootness)? | Rule will soon be effective and continues to harm; suspension isn't permanent. | New rulemaking may supersede rule; not yet in effect, so case is unripe/moot. | Case is ripe and not moot; rule remains potentially effective. |
| Do petitioners have standing? | Members face safety/environmental harms; states must spend money on preparedness; Tribe faces increased risk from LNG trains. | Injuries are speculative, and no concrete harm yet. | Petitioners have standing based on actual and imminent, non-speculative harms. |
| Did PHMSA sufficiently consider risk and adopt adequate safety mitigations? | Failure to cap train length, no speed cap, inadequate tank car history mean risks not sufficiently addressed. | Strengthened tank cars and added monitoring/braking controls appropriately address risks. | PHMSA's mitigations were inadequate to justify no EIS; vacated rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat'l Park Hosp. Ass'n v. Dep't of Interior, 538 U.S. 803 (ripeness doctrine for judicial review of agency decisions)
- Abbott Lab'ys v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (standards for administrative ripeness)
- EPA v. Brown, 431 U.S. 99 (mootness where agency disclaims enforcement)
- FDA v. All. for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. 367 (requirements for Article III standing)
- Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, ex rel., Barez, 458 U.S. 592 (state standing for proprietary harms)
- Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 985 F.3d 1032 (NEPA requires EIS for actions with low-probability, high-consequence risks)
- Grand Canyon Tr. v. FAA, 290 F.3d 339 (arbitrary and capricious review of NEPA decisions)
- Myersville Citizens for a Rural Cmty., Inc. v. FERC, 783 F.3d 1301 (NEPA EIS requirements and court review)
- Dep’t of Com. v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551 (standing based on future or likely injuries)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (future risk sufficient for standing)