On June 18th, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two rulings determining where challenges to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actions under the Clean Air Act must be filed.
The Court held challenges to EPA actions that are locally or regionally applicable but have “nationwide scope or effect” should be filed in the D.C. Circuit.
On the other hand, in a separate suit handed down the same day, the Court held that challenges to the EPA’s disapproval of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) must be filed in a regional court of appeals because such disapprovals are applicable only locally or regionally and do not have nationwide scope and effect.
The bottom line is that those bringing challenges to EPA actions will have to carefully consider the venue for their suits, with venue being determined whether the EPA actions do or do not have nationwide scope and effect.
State Air Plan Disapprovals
In State of Oklahoma, et al. v. EPA, six justices determined that the Biden-era EPA wrongly classified its rejection of multiple states’ interstate ozone plans as a single “nationally applicable” action. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas—joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson—found that these decisions, consolidated in a single Federal Register notice, lacked “nationwide scope or effect” and were therefore properly challenged in regional appellate courts.
Justice Gorsuch concurred in the judgment, with Chief Justice Roberts joining, while Justice Alito did not participate. The immediate consequence of the ruling is that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, rather than the D.C. Circuit, will now consider the legal challenges from Oklahoma, Utah, and industry groups regarding the EPA’s disapproval of their interstate ozone plans.
The Court’s ruling reinforces the position that regional courts are the appropriate venue for challenges to State Implementation Plan (SIP) disapprovals. The SIP disapprovals were necessary before the Biden-era EPA could implement the Good Neighbor Plan (GNP) interstate ozone rule, but the EPA stayed that regulation nationwide following a prior Supreme Court ruling. The Trump EPA is now reviewing the GNP for potential reconsideration.
Biofuel Waiver Rulings
Conversely, in EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC, et al., the Court ruled 7-2 that EPA’s rejection of small refinery waiver requests under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) had “nationwide scope or effect.” Thomas also authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, determining that while the waiver rejections were “locally or regionally applicable” on their face, they warranted a D.C. Circuit venue under the Clean Air Act’s “nationwide scope or effect” exception.
Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Roberts, arguing that the waiver disputes were local issues that should have been litigated in regional appeals courts. He criticized the ruling for introducing a complex new framework for venue disputes, which he argued could unnecessarily complicate future litigation.
The decision reversed the 5th Circuit’s handling of waiver disputes for several Gulf Coast refineries, establishing that such cases should be decided in the D.C. Circuit. However, given the D.C. Circuit’s prior rulings that EPA’s rejection of refinery waivers was legally flawed, the ruling is unlikely to change the substantive outcome. More broadly, the case sets precedent for future EPA decisions that invoke “nationwide scope or effect” as justification for D.C. Circuit venue.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court is actively involved in interpreting the Clean Air Act and determining the appropriate venue for challenges to EPA actions.
- The rulings emphasize that even when an EPA action has national implications, it can still be considered locally or regionally applicable if based on state-specific analysis.
- These decisions have the potential to shape how future Clean Air Act litigation is handled, impacting both the EPA and states’ ability to address air pollution.
Conclusion
Clients facing Clean Air Act regulatory challenges—particularly those involving SIPs or fuel blending standards—should carefully consider the implications of these rulings in determining litigation strategy and venue.
