Supreme Court lets EPA air pollution battles play out in regional courts

Driving the news: The unanimous ruling, which sided with Oklahoma and Utah, "holds that EPA's [state implementation plan] disapprovals were not based on any determination of nationwide scope or effect."

• Justice Clarence Thomas authored the decision and Justice Samuel Alito did not take part.

The big picture: It's a win for several red states and conservative lawmakers, who argued the Clean Air Act enables regional challenges to EPA's rejection of 21 states' plans in 2023.

• And as E&E News points out, appellate courts in Republican-leaning areas are "often seen as friendlier to state and industry interests."

The other side: Over two-dozen states including New York and Michigan argued in favor of centralizing the disputes in the D.C. circuit.

• "Since February 2023, seven circuits have simultaneously reviewed the Rule, which has caused chaos and delay," they said in a joint filing, referring to the 2023 disapproval of 21 state plans.
• "This wasteful litigation has severely harmed" the states by "prolonging the health and economic harms that flow from interstate pollution—contrary to Congress's intent under the Act's venue and good-neighbor provisions."

Yes, but: A separate Supreme Court ruling Wednesday favored D.C. as the place to challenge EPA rejection of small oil refiners' requests for exemptions from biofuels blending mandates.

State of play: "EPA's denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the 'nationwide scope or effect' exception, requiring venue in the D. C. Circuit," it states.

• This ruling was 7-2 and also authored by Thomas, with Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts dissenting.

The bottom line: The high court isn't taking a one-size-fits-all approach on what kinds of battles over EPA decisions should be heard in regional circuits vs. D.C.