Heathrow Airport has been granted permission to attraction towards a block on its plans for a third runway.
In February the Courtroom of Attraction discovered the federal government determination to allow the plans to go forward was illegal.
At the time the courtroom stated the government had not taken its local weather commitments under consideration, but Heathrow stated it will attraction.
The Supreme Courtroom has now given permission for an attraction to go ahead.
Heathrow stated it might go ahead with the attraction, despite the aviation sector taking an enormous hit from the coronavirus crisis.
An airport spokesman stated: "Responding to the impacts of coronavirus is our precedence proper now. We do consider that when the advantages of air journey and connectivity have been restored in years to return, an expanded Heathrow might be required."
The Heathrow spokesman added that the privately funded undertaking would "see billions of kilos pumped into the UK's financial system, stimulating sectors across the country and creating tens of hundreds of latest jobs."
Nevertheless, Associates 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 is especially 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 building," stated Associates of the Earth air 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 keep away from the Courtroom of Attraction's verdict towards them on local weather change by this attraction.
In February, the Courtroom of Attraction discovered that the government had not adopted UK coverage when backing the controversial enlargement plans.
It stated that the government had a duty to bear in mind the Paris climate agreement, which seeks to limit international warming.
It was "legally deadly" to the government's Heathrow enlargement coverage that it did not take those local weather commitments under consideration, the judges stated on the time.
On Thursday, three Supreme Courtroom Justices - Lord Reed, Lord Hodge and Lord Sales - gave permission to attraction that judgement.
British Airways-owner IAG, which has up to now criticised the enlargement's prices and referred to as for an unbiased assessment of the environmental influence, 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 precedence right now, however an expanded Heathrow can play an necessary position in driving prosperity over the long run.
"Companies might be pleased that Heathrow has been given the chance to get this essential venture again on monitor."
And Adam Marshal, director basic of business group the British Chambers of Commerce, stated: "Companies are clear that an expanded Heathrow will provide essential regional connectivity, access to key markets the world over and wider financial benefits extending across the UK.
"Whereas attention is rightly targeted on the fast response to coronavirus, companies might be hoping that long-overdue plans for a world-leading hub airport can move forward sooner or later to help power restoration and future progress."