Endangered Species Act | Environmental Protection Laws | Politics

Introduction: Coalition of States vs Federal Government

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser is preparing to join a coalition of 15 states in a lawsuit accusing the federal government of flouting the Endangered Species Act (ESA), with specific concern over proposed infrastructure expansions that will significantly increase hazardous oil shipments through Colorado. The suit targets projects such as Utah’s Wildcat Loadout expansion and the Uinta Basin Railway—part of a broader complaint that administration directives, under the banner of a “national energy emergency,” are being used to circumvent critical environmental protections for species and habitats at risk.

Background: What Sparked the Dispute

• In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring a “National Energy Emergency.” Among other effects, this EO directed federal agencies to expedite fossil fuel production infrastructure, sometimes relaxing or bypassing longstanding regulatory and environmental review procedures. (Colorado Newsline)
• One project under scrutiny is the Wildcat Loadout Facility Right‑of‑Way Amendment, on public lands in Utah’s Uinta Basin. If expanded, this facility would allow greatly increased transfers of oil onto rail lines that pass through Colorado. Additionally, the much larger Uinta Basin Railway project—already approved in part by the U.S. Surface Transportation Board—would send heated crude oil via tanker cars over routes entering Colorado along key waterways and sensitive terrain. (Colorado Newsline)
• Colorado’s AG, in a letter dated July 18, 2025, gave federal agencies 60 days’ notice of intent to sue under the ESA for what the state and others assert is systematic delay or avoidance of endangered species protections tied to the energy emergency order. That notice period has recently expired. (Colorado Newsline)

Legal Claims & Alleged Violations

Colorado and its partner states are alleging several legal wrongs under the ESA and implementing regulations:

1. Failure to Consult: Federal agencies allegedly failed or are failing to properly engage in Section 7 consultations under the ESA, which require review of actions that may jeopardize listed species or critical habitat.
2. Bypassing Required Environmental Review: Using the emergency powers invoked by the executive order to fast‑track permits or use expedited review instead of more thorough processes (e.g. full environmental impact statements). (Colorado Newsline)
3. Avoiding Obligations Under ESA and Regulatory Rules: The complaint argues that the practice of delaying or avoiding species protection responsibilities is not allowed; that executive orders cannot override or authorize routine departures from ESA’s mandates. (Colorado Newsline)

Early Effects & Public Response

• The announcement itself has already raised awareness and brought scrutiny to the Wildcat Loadout expansion and rail shipments of crude that would pass through Colorado, particularly along the Colorado River and through areas vulnerable to environmental and climate risk. (Colorado Newsline)
• Local governments, environmental groups, and community stakeholders in Colorado have expressed concern that increased rail traffic translates into elevated risk of derailments, spills, air pollution, wildfire ignition, and threats to aquatic and terrestrial species. (Colorado Newsline)
• Colorado officials argue there is no actual emergency justifying the sweeping measures in the executive order, pointing out that U.S. oil production is already at historically high levels. They contend the emergency declaration is being used as a tool to fast‑track projects without the usual checks on environmental harm. (Colorado Newsline)

Legal Issues & Challenges

Key legal questions and hurdles that Colorado and the coalition must address:

• Jurisdiction & Standing: The states must show that they are harmed by the challenged actions—through environmental damage, risk to species, or downstream effects—and that those harms are traceable to the federal approvals or bypassed regulations.
• Scope of Emergency Powers: How far can an executive order go in ordering agencies to speed up or alter review processes? What limits does the National Emergencies Act, NOAA, ESA, NEPA, and other laws place on such power?
• Adequacy of Consultation & Review: Whether the federal government has met its legal obligations to consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife, NMFS, or other agencies; whether reviews are sufficient in scope, based on current scientific data, and properly consider downstream, cumulative, and indirect effects of rail oil transport (spills, wildfire risk, habitat fragmentation).
• Precedent & Environmental Law Principles: Courts often enforce that environmental laws such as ESA are mandatory, not optional. If agencies have indeed created policies or practices that shortcut or delay protections under the ESA, courts may be inclined to require strict compliance.

What’s at Stake

For the federal government: a ruling against will limit how aggressively agencies can use executive orders to override or sidestep environmental protections under laws like the ESA. It may also require more rigorous environmental review and stronger regulation of oil rail transport, especially across ecologically sensitive areas.

For Colorado and other states: success in this litigation could provide more control or influence over how federal infrastructure projects impact environmental health, water quality, river habitats, and species protection. It may also signal increased judicial willingness to rein in fast‑track claims that conflict with environmental statutes.

For impacted communities and ecosystems: if protections are upheld, it could mean fewer rail accidents, lower risk of oil spills, better preservation of species and habitats, and more transparent and inclusive environmental review processes.

What’s Next

• Colorado’s decision to formally join the lawsuit will trigger additional briefing and likely lead to motions to enjoin certain pending permits and infrastructure expansions.
• Courts will assess whether notices like Colorado’s met legal requirements and whether the government can show that the fast‑tracking and emergency orders are justified under both statutory and constitutional law.
• Key evidence will likely include internal agency documents, environmental assessments, projections of oil train traffic, species risk assessments, and records of public input or consultation—or lack thereof.
• The case may culminate in injunctive relief halting portions of the Wildcat Loadout expansion, stricter conditions on oil transportation approvals, and possibly judicial orders reinforcing the mandatory nature of ESA compliance.

Conclusion

Colorado’s imminent participation in the multi‑state lawsuit over endangered species protections tied to oil train infrastructure marks a pivotal moment in environmental law. It reflects mounting concern that federal declarations of emergency are being used not to respond to disasters, but to push through fossil fuel projects at the cost of ecological risk. The outcome may define the limits of executive power in environmental regulation, reaffirm the binding requirements of the ESA, and set precedents for how courts—and states—respond when environmental safeguards are presumed by regulation.