The U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed the types of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decisions that must be reviewed by the D.C. Circuit, allowing more challenges to proceed in regional courts.
Rachel Frazin reports for The Hill.
In short:
- The Supreme Court ruled that only EPA actions justified by nationwide implications must go through the D.C. Circuit, making it easier to file certain challenges in regional courts.
- In one case, the court held that EPA rejections of refinery biofuel exemptions qualified for D.C. review; in another, it said state air pollution plan rejections could be contested locally.
- The decisions split the justices, with Gorsuch and Roberts dissenting in one and Alito recusing in the other.
Why this matters:
Where lawsuits against the EPA are heard can shape the outcome of environmental enforcement. The D.C. Circuit has traditionally handled national policy questions, but this decision limits its reach, potentially shifting more cases to regional courts that may be more politically polarized. This could affect how clean air rules are enforced, how refinery exemptions are granted, and how states can push back against federal mandates. Local court rulings might lead to inconsistent environmental protections across the country. For communities dealing with industrial air pollution or states trying to meet national air quality standards, this legal reshuffling could delay enforcement or block new protections, especially in circuits that lean toward industry-friendly interpretations.
Related: Supreme Court considers shifting some Clean Air Act cases out of D.C.
