U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has recused himself from a development–environmental case over a potential conflict of interest after protests from Democratic lawmakers who say the court decision will impact a longtime associate of the justice.
Oral argument for the case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, is scheduled to be heard by the court next Tuesday.
The Trump nominee notified attorneys in the case through a letter delivered by the court clerk on Wednesday.
The case is to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the U.S. Surface Transportation Board to consider indirect impacts in its environmental assessments following a railway project sought by a group of counties in Utah.
The board had approved the project in 2021 following a two-year, 1,700-page Environmental Impact Statement for a railway that would transport up to an estimated 350,000 barrels of oil per day through Utah and Colorado. But it was met with opposition from environmental groups who joined concerned members of Eagle County to sue over concerns of spills, wildfires, and predicted risk to climate change.
The proposed 88-mile railway line would connect oilfields in rural northeastern Utah’s Uinta Basin to the existing national freight rail network that would primarily be used to transport waxy crude oil to refineries on the Gulf Coast through Denver, Colorado.
Justice Gorsuch served as an attorney in the early 2000s for Denver-based billionaire Philip Anschutz, who stands likely to benefit financially if the railway is approved. Anschutz owns the private oil and gas company Anschutz Exploration Corporation and has ties to other companies involved in the project.
Anschutz submitted an amicus brief to the court in favor of the railroad, saying that “far more is at stake in this case than the 88-mile rail line in rural Utah.”
“Instead, this case presents a question that recurs in virtually every case brought by special-interest groups that oppose oil-and-gas and other mineral development on public lands: Must an agency ‘study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority?’”
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and 12 other Democratic lawmakers wrote to Justice Gorsuch on Nov. 21 seeking his recusal from the case over the conflict of interest.
“Our nation’s highest court should hold itself to the highest ethical standards,” the Democrats wrote at the time. “To show the American people that the Supreme Court is impartial, you must recuse yourself from any case that directly impacts the financial fortunes of Philip Anschutz, the man who was your previous legal client.”
Upon news of Justice Gorsuch’s decision, Johnson called it “the right and honorable thing.”
“It is important that the court show the public that it is not in the pocket of billionaire benefactors,” he said. “That said, I believe we need a system that does not just rely on individual justices to do the right thing in every case.”
Justice Gorsuch is part of the court’s current 6-3 conservative majority.
