Supreme Court Splits on Where Suits Against EPA Can Be Filed (1)

The US Supreme Court reached opposite conclusions in two cases considering where industry groups and states can sue the EPA over actions that have local and national effects.

In a 7-2 opinion Wednesday by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court said refineries seeking an exemption from renewable fuel standards must go to the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit because the national considerations predominate the agency’s decisions.

But in a separate unanimous opinion also written by Thomas, the justices said challenges to state plans dealing with air pollution should go to the regional courts of appeal, as local considerations will decide the issue.

At the heart of the two disputes is a statute that generally steers cases with local impact to federal circuit courts and those with national implications to the D.C. Circuit. The question for the justices was what happens when the action has both local and national effects. State and industry challengers say regional circuits should decide.

Overhanging both cases is increasing scrutiny of so-called judge shopping in which plaintiffs sue in courts where they believe they have a better chance of drawing judges who’d be friendlier to their claims.

The trajectory of oral arguments suggested the justices might come to different outcomes in the two cases, which is what occurred in EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining and Oklahoma v. EPA.

In the former, Thomas was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Neil Gorsuch filed a dissent that Chief Justice John Roberts joined.

In November 2023, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the EPA’s denial of requests from six small refineries asking for exemptions from its renewable fuel standard program. That court said the exemption actions weren’t nationally applicable nor nationwide in scope which kept the case out of the D.C. Circuit.

Thomas wrote that EPA denials of fuel standard exemptions “are only locally or regionally applicable, but they fall within the ‘nationwide scope or effect’ exception” so any challenge must be filed with the D.C. Circuit.

He wrote that “where EPA relies on determinations of nationwide scope or effect to reach a presumptive resolution, those determinations qualify as the primary driver of its decision. EPA’s confirmatory review of refinery-specific facts is '[m]erely peripheral’ by comparison.”

In the Oklahoma case, involving the EPA’s disapproval of two states’ Good Neighbor ozone plans, Thomas’ opinion was joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Jackson. Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, which Roberts joined. Alito recused from the case.

The majority found that the Tenth Circuit erred in holding that challenges to EPA disapproval in these air pollution cases should be reviewed in the D.C. Circuit.

Thomas wrote that EPA disapproval of state implementation plans (SIP) by Oklahoma and Utah for how to comply with EPA air quality standards are considered local or regional actions. “These cases are not ones where the ‘nationwide scope or effect’ exception applies,” and challenges “can be heard only in a regional circuit.”

“EPA’s omnibus rule makes clear that its SIP disapprovals were based on ‘a number of intensely factual determinations’ particular to each State,” Thomas wrote. “EPA evaluated the contents of each SIP ‘on their own merits,’ considering state-specific facts and information available to each State.”

That distinction is what separates the two cases, Thomas said.

“This state-specific analysis contrasts sharply with EPA’s justifications in Calumet, where EPA made determinations that applied uniformly to all small refineries and used them to reach a presumptive conclusion, considering refinery-specific facts only to confirm that there is no reason to depart from the presumptive disposition.”

The cases are EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC, U.S., No. 23-1229, 6/18/25 and Oklahoma v. EPA, U.S., No. 23-1068, 6/18/25.