Oklahoma v. EPA

Docket Number

23-1067

Citation

605/2

Term

October Term 2024

Argued

March 25, 2025

Decided

June 18, 2025

Lower Court

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Author

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas

Concurring

Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Neil M. Gorsuch, John G. Roberts, Jr.

Read the official slip opinion (PDF)

AI-Generated Summary

Case Summary: Oklahoma et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.

1. Case Information:

• Case Name: Oklahoma et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. (together with PacifiCorp et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.)
• Docket Number: Nos. 23–1067 and 23–1068
• Dates: Argued March 25, 2025; Decided June 18, 2025
• Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

2. Facts of the Case:

• In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, making them more stringent. States submitted state implementation plans (SIPs) to comply with the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) “Good Neighbor” provision, which prohibits in-state emissions from interfering with other states’ NAAQS compliance.
• EPA disapproved the SIPs of 21 states, including Oklahoma and Utah, for failing to meet Good Neighbor requirements, after evaluating each SIP individually based on state-specific facts. EPA aggregated these disapprovals into a single Federal Register rule, asserting that challenges to the disapprovals should be reviewed only in the D.C. Circuit due to their national applicability or nationwide scope or effect.
• States and industry petitioners challenged the disapprovals in regional Circuits. While four Circuits found regional review appropriate, the Tenth Circuit transferred Oklahoma and Utah’s challenges to the D.C. Circuit, deeming EPA’s rule a nationally applicable action. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the venue determination.

3. Legal Issues Presented:

• Question: What is the proper venue under 42 U.S.C. §7607(b)(1) for challenging EPA’s disapprovals of Oklahoma and Utah’s SIPs—regional Circuits or the D.C. Circuit? Specifically, are these disapprovals “nationally applicable” or “locally or regionally applicable” actions, and if the latter, do they fall under the “nationwide scope or effect” exception requiring D.C. Circuit review?
• Legal Basis: The case involves interpretation of the CAA’s venue provision, §7607(b)(1), which dictates venue based on the scope of EPA actions.
• Arguments: Petitioners argued that each SIP disapproval is a distinct, locally or regionally applicable action reviewable in regional Circuits. EPA contended that its aggregated rule constituted a nationally applicable action or, alternatively, fell under the “nationwide scope or effect” exception due to its consistent analytical framework.

4. The Court's Decision (Main Opinion):

• Author & Type: Justice Thomas, Majority Opinion
• Holding: EPA’s disapprovals of the Oklahoma and Utah SIPs are locally or regionally applicable actions under §7607(b)(1) and do not fall under the “nationwide scope or effect” exception, thus they are reviewable in a regional Circuit.
• Legal Reasoning:
• The Court applied a two-step framework from EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. to determine venue. First, it identified each SIP disapproval as a distinct “action” under the CAA, as §7607(b)(1) and §7410 treat individual SIP approvals and disapprovals as separate actions, regardless of EPA’s aggregation in a single rule.
• Each disapproval is locally or regionally applicable because it pertains only to the specific state’s SIP, aligning with the CAA’s enumeration of SIP approvals as such actions.
• At the second step, the “nationwide scope or effect” exception did not apply. Although EPA published a finding of nationwide scope, the disapprovals were driven by state-specific, fact-intensive analyses rather than a primary nationwide determination. EPA’s cited methodologies (e.g., 1% contribution threshold) were merely analytical tools, not the primary drivers of the disapprovals.
• Disposition: The Tenth Circuit’s judgment transferring the cases to the D.C. Circuit was reversed, and the cases were remanded for further proceedings in a regional Circuit.

5. Concurring Opinion(s):

• Justice Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice Roberts: Concurring in the judgment only, Justice Gorsuch agreed that the proper venue is a regional Circuit but arrived at this conclusion via a different reasoning path, as explained in his dissent in the companion case, EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. He declined to join the majority opinion.

6. Dissenting Opinion(s):

• None. (Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.)

7. Potential Significance:

• This decision clarifies the application of the CAA’s venue provision, §7607(b)(1), emphasizing that the nature of an EPA “action” is determined by the underlying statutory provision, not by EPA’s presentation or aggregation of decisions. It reinforces the default rule of regional Circuit review for locally or regionally applicable actions like individual SIP disapprovals, potentially ensuring more localized judicial oversight of state-specific environmental decisions unless a clear nationwide determination drives EPA’s action.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Key terms: Clean Air Act, State Implementation Plans, EPA Disapprovals