Heathrow Airport has been granted permission to attraction towards a block on its plans for a 3rd runway.
In February the Courtroom of Attraction discovered the federal government determination to allow the plans to go forward was unlawful.
At the time the courtroom stated the federal government had not taken its climate commitments under consideration, but Heathrow stated it might attraction.
The Supreme Courtroom has now given permission for an attraction to go forward.
Heathrow stated it will go ahead with the attraction, regardless of the aviation sector taking an enormous hit from the coronavirus disaster.
An airport spokesman stated: "Responding to the impacts of coronavirus is our precedence proper now. We do consider that when the benefits of air travel and connectivity have been restored in years to return, an expanded Heathrow will probably be required."
The Heathrow spokesman added that the privately funded venture would "see billions of pounds pumped into the UK's financial system, stimulating sectors across the nation and creating tens of hundreds of latest jobs."
Nevertheless, Pals of the Earth, which was one of the teams that introduced the case towards Heathrow, stated investment should as an alternative be put into green infrastructure tasks.
"It's particularly essential now, as we plan for a future after the dreadful coronavirus pandemic, that the UK invests in low-carbon, resilient infrastructure. A new runway at Heathrow is the other of what we must be constructing," stated Associates of the Earth pollution campaigner Jenny Bates.
Will Rundle, head of authorized at Pals of the Earth, stated: "We'll resist the attraction brought by Heathrow Airport and the developer Aurora Holdings, in the Supreme Courtroom.
"Local weather change have to be entrance and centre in all planning and infrastructure selections, and it's irresponsible for them to attempt to avoid the Courtroom of Attraction's verdict towards them on local weather change by this attraction.
In February, the Courtroom of Attraction found that the government had not followed UK policy when backing the controversial enlargement plans.
It stated that the federal government had a duty to bear in mind the Paris local weather agreement, which seeks to limit international warming.
It was "legally deadly" to the government's Heathrow enlargement coverage that it didn't take these climate commitments under consideration, the judges stated at the time.
On Thursday, three Supreme Courtroom Justices - Lord Reed, Lord Hodge and Lord Gross sales - gave permission to attraction that judgement.
British Airways-owner IAG, which has prior to now criticised the enlargement's prices and referred to as for an unbiased assessment of the environmental impression, stated: "The challenges dealing with Heathrow's enlargement are immense and even higher now following [the coronavirus crisis]."
Nevertheless, the CBI business group stated: "Making certain a protected return to work after coronavirus is enterprise' prime priority proper now, however an expanded Heathrow can play an essential position in driving prosperity over the long term.
"Businesses might be happy that Heathrow has been given the opportunity to get this important challenge again on monitor."
And Adam Marshal, director common of business group the British Chambers of Commerce, stated: "Companies are clear that an expanded Heathrow will present crucial regional connectivity, entry to key markets the world over and wider economic benefits extending throughout the UK.
"Whereas consideration is rightly targeted on the quick response to coronavirus, companies can be hoping that long-overdue plans for a world-leading hub airport can move ahead sooner or later to help energy recovery and future progress."