The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear critical appeals regarding the jurisdiction of lawsuits challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) clean air policies. This decision could significantly impact how environmental regulations are contested in the future, particularly regarding air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
On Monday, the justices announced they would review appeals from Republican-led states, including Oklahoma and Utah, as well as several energy companies, including PacifiCorp. These appeals stem from a lower court ruling that shifted their challenges against the EPA’s “Good Neighbor” smog control plan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a venue often favored in regulatory disputes.
At the heart of this case is whether certain lawsuits can be redirected away from regional appeals courts—where opponents of EPA actions typically file—and instead be heard in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court will also consider whether a federal appeals court in New Orleans should have transferred a separate lawsuit by small refiners contesting the EPA’s denial of waivers from national biofuel mandates.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond expressed optimism about the Supreme Court’s involvement, arguing that the Biden administration’s “Good Neighbor” policy imposes an “unwieldy and costly one-size-fits-all plan” on his state. PacifiCorp echoed this sentiment, stating it hopes the court will clarify the balance of authority between states and the EPA in implementing provisions of the Clean Air Act.
The legal debate revolves around a specific provision of the Clean Air Act that designates the D.C. Circuit as the exclusive venue for challenges to “nationally applicable” EPA actions and rules. In contrast, cases concerning local agency actions are typically reserved for regional appeals courts.
The lawsuit initiated by Oklahoma and Utah is part of a broader wave of legal actions taken by Republican state attorneys general and industry groups against the EPA’s “Good Neighbor” plan. This rule, issued in March 2023, aims to reduce ozone pollution from power plants and industrial sources in 23 upwind states that have failed to meet their obligations under the Clean Air Act.
In June, amid ongoing litigation, a conservative-majority Supreme Court temporarily blocked enforcement of this rule while lower court proceedings continued. This decision came after several states—including Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia—unsuccessfully sought relief in the D.C. Circuit.
Oklahoma and Utah contend that their case should be heard in the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because the EPA’s rejection of their air quality plans constitutes a local agency action rather than a national one. However, the 10th Circuit disagreed earlier this year and transferred the case to Washington.
In a separate appeal, the EPA is urging the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that sided with six oil refineries challenging the agency’s denial of waivers from renewable fuel requirements. The EPA argues that these denials are part of a broader national issue involving multiple states and refineries.
These cases are set to be heard under docket numbers Oklahoma v. EPA (No. 23-1067) and EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining (No. 23-1229).
Read more:
Media Matters Defends Donor Privacy As Court Halts X’s Information Request
Is Musk’s Million-Dollar Giveaway A Breach Of Election Laws?
Detainees Challenge ICE Policy Limiting Access To Virtual Court Hearings