The Supreme Court recently delivered two significant decisions clarifying where challenges to certain Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actions under the Clean Air Act should be filed. Both decisions were authored by Justice Clarence Thomas and revolved around a key provision of the Clean Air Act that differentiates between “nationally applicable” and “locally or regionally applicable” EPA actions.
In the first case, EPA v. Calumet, the Court addressed challenges made by a group of small refineries in Louisiana. These refineries contested the EPA’s denial of their requests for exemptions from complying with the Clean Air Act’s renewable fuel program. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit had ruled that these challenges should remain within their jurisdiction, arguing the actions were regionally applicable. However, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, overturned this ruling. Justice Thomas concluded that the EPA’s decisions, which used generic arguments applicable to all refineries, necessitated filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under the exception for “local or regional actions with nationwide scope or effect.” Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, dissented, arguing the Clean Air Act did not require nationwide determinations for small refinery exemptions.
The second case, Oklahoma v. EPA, involved challenges by Oklahoma and Utah to the EPA’s rejection of their states’ emissions-control plans. The 10th Circuit had transferred these challenges to the District of Columbia Circuit, reasoning that the EPA’s rejection was part of a broader rule affecting 21 states. Yet, the Supreme Court found otherwise, ruling the emissions-control plan decision was rooted in state-specific analyses, without a “nationwide factor,” and should thus not be transferred to the D.C. Circuit. Justice Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts concurred with this outcome, albeit with reservations regarding the Court’s reasoning.
These rulings ultimately underscore the nuanced framework of the Clean Air Act, emphasizing how regional and national impacts dictate the jurisdiction for legal challenges. For further details on these decisions, the full discussion can be accessed at SCOTUSblog.