EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C.

Docket Number: 23-1229
Citation: 605/2
Term: October Term 2024
Argued: March 25, 2025
Decided: June 18, 2025
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Author: Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
Concurring: Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Ketanji Brown Jackson
Dissenting: Neil M. Gorsuch, John G. Roberts, Jr.

Read the official slip opinion (PDF)

AI-Generated Summary

Case Summary: Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., et al.

1. Case Information:

Case Name: Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., et al.
Docket Number: 23–1229
Dates: Argued March 25, 2025 — Decided June 18, 2025
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

2. Facts of the Case:

The Clean Air Act (CAA) includes a renewable fuel program requiring domestic refineries to blend specific amounts of renewable fuels into transportation fuels. Small refineries (processing no more than 75,000 barrels of crude oil daily) can petition the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for exemptions based on “disproportionate economic hardship.”
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Assn. (594 U.S. 382), which clarified that small refineries could seek exemption extensions even after initial exemptions lapsed, the D.C. Circuit remanded pending exemption cases to EPA for reconsideration.
In 2022, EPA denied 105 small refinery exemption petitions in two omnibus notices (April and July), relying on a uniform interpretation of “disproportionate economic hardship” (limited to hardship caused by program compliance) and an economic theory of Renewable Identification Number (RIN) cost passthrough to consumers, creating a presumption against exemptions. EPA also reviewed individual refinery circumstances to confirm denials.
Small refineries challenged these denials in multiple regional Circuits. While most Circuits dismissed or transferred the cases to the D.C. Circuit, the Fifth Circuit retained jurisdiction, rejected EPA’s venue arguments, and ruled for the refineries on the merits.

3. Legal Issues Presented:

Legal Question: Under 42 U.S.C. §7607(b)(1) of the CAA, is the proper venue for judicial review of EPA’s denials of small refinery exemption petitions in the D.C. Circuit or a regional Circuit? Specifically, are the denials “nationally applicable” actions, or if “locally or regionally applicable,” do they fall under the “nationwide scope or effect” exception requiring review in the D.C. Circuit?
Legal Basis: The case involves statutory interpretation of the CAA’s venue provision (§7607(b)(1)), which categorizes EPA actions as “nationally applicable” (reviewable in the D.C. Circuit) or “locally or regionally applicable” (generally reviewable in regional Circuits, unless based on a determination of “nationwide scope or effect”).
Main Arguments:
EPA: Argued that the denials, issued in omnibus notices, were either “nationally applicable” due to their broad impact or, alternatively, “locally or regionally applicable” actions based on determinations of “nationwide scope or effect” (statutory interpretation and RIN passthrough theory), thus requiring D.C. Circuit review.
Respondents (Small Refineries): Argued that the denials were “locally or regionally applicable” since they affected specific refineries and involved refinery-specific factual considerations, not determinations of nationwide scope or effect, thus belonging in regional Circuits like the Fifth Circuit.

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

Author & Type: Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, representing a Majority opinion joined by Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson.
Holding: EPA’s denials of small refinery exemption petitions are “locally or regionally applicable” actions but fall within the “nationwide scope or effect” exception under §7607(b)(1), requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit.
Legal Reasoning:
The Court established a two-step inquiry for venue under §7607(b)(1): (1) determine if an EPA action is “nationally applicable” or “locally or regionally applicable”; (2) if the latter, assess if it is based on a determination of “nationwide scope or effect.”
At step one, each denial of an individual refinery’s petition is a distinct “action” under the CAA, as defined by the authorizing provision, not EPA’s omnibus notices. Such denials apply only to specific refineries, making them “locally or regionally applicable.”
At step two, the “nationwide scope or effect” exception applies if the action is based on a core determination of nationwide breadth. EPA’s interpretation of “disproportionate economic hardship” and its RIN passthrough theory are determinations of nationwide scope, applying generically to all refineries. These formed the primary basis for EPA’s presumptive denials, with refinery-specific reviews being merely confirmatory and peripheral.
Courts must assess the basis of EPA’s actions de novo, independent of EPA’s findings, though EPA’s publication of such a finding is a prerequisite (met here).
Disposition: The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion (i.e., transfer to the D.C. Circuit).

5. Concurring Opinion(s) (if any):

There are no concurring opinions in this case. All joining Justices agreed with the majority opinion written by Justice Thomas.

6. Dissenting Opinion(s) (if any):

Author & Joining Justice: Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts.
Reasons for Dissent:
Justice Gorsuch agrees with the majority that EPA’s denials are “locally or regionally applicable” actions, presumptively belonging in a regional Circuit.
However, he disagrees on the application of the “nationwide scope or effect” exception, arguing that the CAA’s substantive provisions for small refinery exemptions (§7545(o)(9)) do not require EPA to make determinations of nationwide scope or effect, focusing instead on refinery-specific hardship assessments.
He criticizes the majority’s multi-step test for conflating EPA’s reasoning with statutory “determinations” and for creating a complex, subjective framework that weighs the “core” versus “peripheral” drivers of EPA’s actions, likely leading to confusion and protracted venue litigation.
Gorsuch advocates a simpler approach, looking directly to the CAA’s substantive provisions to determine if a nationwide determination is required, and finds none here, thus favoring regional Circuit venue.

7. Potential Significance:

This ruling clarifies the application of the CAA’s venue provision (§7607(b)(1)), establishing that individual EPA actions, even when aggregated in omnibus notices, are assessed based on their statutory framing, not EPA’s packaging, and that the “nationwide scope or effect” exception hinges on whether core determinations driving the action apply nationally.
The decision may influence how EPA structures future actions and findings to control venue, potentially centralizing more CAA litigation in the D.C. Circuit when broad legal or economic theories underpin decisions, even for locally applicable actions.
The majority’s de novo review standard for venue determinations ensures judicial oversight of EPA’s venue claims, potentially affecting the balance between agency discretion and judicial control in CAA cases.

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, Small Refinery Exemptions, Venue Determination