In June, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from enforcing its Good Neighbor Plan while litigation over the plan continues in the lower courts. The plan is designed to address air pollution that crosses state lines by imposing a nationwide framework affecting pollution from “upwind” to “downwind” states. The question now facing lawmakers and legal professionals centers on a relatively obscure provision in the Clean Air Act, determining which courts should hear these ongoing challenges.
Under the Clean Air Act, Congress has divided the country into 13 federal judicial circuits, typically requiring parties to challenge EPA regulations in their regional circuit. However, for regulations deemed national in scope, challenges are directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This rule, known as the venue provision, is at the heart of several petitions currently before the Supreme Court.
One set of petitions arises from the dispute over the Good Neighbor Plan itself. In issuing the plan, the EPA rejected the proposals of 21 states and instead imposed a single, nationwide framework. The Supreme Court’s decision to pause the plan was in response to requests from Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, along with several power companies. Even though the venue provision required those challenges to be filed in the D.C. Circuit, Oklahoma and Utah had filed challenges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The 10th Circuit ultimately transferred their cases to the D.C. Circuit, agreeing with the EPA that the plan was a “nationally applicable final rule.”
A similar venue dispute has emerged regarding the Renewable Fuel Standard, part of the Clean Air Act that mandates oil refineries to blend biofuels into their gasoline or purchase credits to offset excess fossil-fuel emissions. When the EPA denied numerous exemption requests from refineries nationwide, six refineries sought review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. In contrast to the 10th Circuit, the 5th Circuit held that it was the correct venue, determining the EPA’s action was “local or regionally applicable.”
As highlighted in SCOTUSblog’s recent coverage, the cumulative effect of these petitions has brought the venue provision’s interpretation to the forefront. Oklahoma and Utah argue that the 10th Circuit diverged from the majority of its sister circuits by transferring their challenges to the D.C. Circuit. Meanwhile, several petitions from other states, refineries, and companies also seek to resolve this venue question definitively.
The EPA suggests that the Supreme Court should not weigh in on the Good Neighbor Plan just yet. Instead, it proposes that the Court should consider the venue question in the broader context of the Renewable Fuel Standards litigation. That approach might streamline the resolution of these jurisdictional issues, which are critical for both states and industries navigating complex environmental regulations.
This venue debate could significantly impact the future of environmental litigation, determining where and how challenges to national policies are adjudicated across the U.S. legal landscape.