Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser joined a multistate lawsuit challenging an executive order invoking the National Emergencies Act that President Donald Trump issued on the day of his inauguration. The order fast-tracks fossil fuel projects by bypassing or shortening environmental reviews.

While the Act applies nationwide, according to a news release from his office, Weiser’s immediate concern centers on the Uinta Basin Railroad. It’s an 88-mile railway that will transport waxy crude from oilfields in northeastern Utah near Duchesne to the national rail network near Helper, Utah, to connect to the Union Pacific’s Central Colorado line, which already carries oil through Colorado.

The Uinta Basin produces waxy crude that requires special handling. Current output is about 90,000 barrels per day, mostly trucked to refineries in Salt Lake City.

The proposed Uinta Basin Railway would connect the basin to national networks via an 88-mile line. It would enable the transport of up to 350,000 barrels per day to Gulf Coast refineries, as well as providing better transportation into and out of the basin, according to the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition.

“Congress passed the National Emergencies Act to prevent presidents from declaring national emergencies for pointless or partisan purposes — exactly what the president has done with this executive order,” Weiser said in a news release. “Energy production is at an all-time high. The only energy emergency is the one that is the president’s head.”

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, names Trump, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the head of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as defendants. Sixteen states seek to declare the order illegal and halt emergency permits.

“Derailments, spills, or other accidents from oil trains traveling on rail lines next to our rivers pose a serious risk to the millions of people, businesses, and farms that depend on these critical sources of water,” Weiser said. “We challenge this made-up emergency to protect our communities and our land, air, and water in Colorado.”

Proponents argue that rail expansion boosts the economy. It creates jobs, supports energy independence, and reduces risks associated with truck traffic. Rail offers safer, efficient transport to distant markets, they say.

The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition backs the project, saying it marks a turning point for rural Utah, enabling safer transportation and economic diversification.

Environmental groups and Colorado officials have raised concerns about the project’s potential impacts. The Center for Biological Diversity has called the railway “a dangerous, polluting boondoggle that threatens people, wildlife and our hope for a livable planet,” citing increased risk of fires and oil spills along the Colorado River corridor.

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet and Rep. Joe Neguse stated in a 2026 letter: “A train derailment that spills oil in the headwaters of the Colorado River would be catastrophic not only to our state’s water supplies, wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation assets, but also the broader Colorado River Basin.”

A coalition of 10 local governments warned in a 2022 court brief: “The release of highly flammable crude oil could ruin this unique region for decades.”

Keith Heaton, director of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, said in a prior interview with The Denver Gazette that the waxy crude “is not a liquid. It’s a solid. So, it’s not a hazardous material. It’s not a flammable liquid. It’s a solid. So, if there was a derailment, it would be like picking up a bunch of candles off the ground.”

Heaton described rail as “the safest and most ecological way to transport material,” given the crude’s properties.

The Supreme Court ruled on the related railway approval in May 2025. In an 8-0 decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, the court reversed a D.C. Circuit ruling. It held that the Surface Transportation Board complied with the National Environmental Policy Act by focusing on the railway’s direct effects.

The court said NEPA does not require analysis of upstream oil drilling or downstream refining effects separate in time or place. Agencies need only consider the impacts of the project at hand, and courts must afford substantial deference to agency choices in NEPA reviews.

The ruling cleared the path for the railway after years of litigation. It emphasized NEPA as a procedural statute focused on the immediate project.

Weiser has filed 51 lawsuits against the Trump administration this term. Many focus on funding, rights, and environmental protections.