Lansing, Michigan –Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has joined 20 other state attorneys general in a major attempt to maintain environmental laws by challenging a court ruling that might undercut the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
This act, which mandates federal agencies to examine the environmental impact of their actions, serves as the cornerstone for US environmental legislation. The attorneys general are contesting the Council of Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) interim final rule, known as the Repeal Rule, which attempts to repeal current NEPA implementing regulations
The coalition, which expressed its disapproval in a comment letter, claims that the Repeal Rule is an unprecedented rollback of environmental and community protections. This Trump administration action may jeopardize the well-being of Michigan residents as well as the environmental health of areas such as the Great Lakes.
“The Trump Administration’s illegal move threatens the well-being of Michigan residents and the health of our Great Lakes,” Nessel told the crowd.
“These decades-old safeguards, which require federal agencies to consider climate change and environmental justice impacts, are critical to protecting our environment and communities. Abandoning them puts our natural resources and public health at risk.”
The coalition claims that the Repeal Rule violates NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They warn that this regulatory change will lead to increased uncertainty, longer project approval delays, reduced public participation, and less thorough environmental decision-making.
Since 1978, the current NEPA rules have directed federal agencies to conduct comprehensive environmental assessments, ensuring coordinated activities between federal and state bodies and allowing public participation in environmental control.
The coalition’s comment letter raises several key concerns:
- The enduring effectiveness of current NEPA regulations in protecting public health and the environment.
- The insufficient 30-day comment period offered for public engagement and feedback on the proposed rule change, which they argue does not allow for adequate public participation.
- The characterization of the Repeal Rule as “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and without observance of procedure required by law.”
- The failure of the CEQ to properly assess potential environmental damages stemming from the Repeal Rule, a requirement under both NEPA and the Endangered Species Act.
Attorneys general from California, New York, and Oregon, as well as officials from Harris County, Texas, argue that removing these critical rules will disrupt the environmental assessment procedures for federal projects, resulting in chaotic outcomes and potentially environmental consequences.
The coordinated efforts of state legal officials demonstrate a strong commitment to upholding environmental laws that protect public areas, resources, and people’s health across the country.
As these court battles continue, the outcomes could have a significant impact on how environmental policies are implemented in the United States, affecting everything from local community initiatives to large-scale government land use and development plans.
