Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency

Issues

Is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit the only venue that can hear challenges to a final EPA action under the Clean Air Act for a single state if the agency published it alongside other states?

Oral argument:
March 25, 2025
Court below:
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether states are permitted to challenge final actions of the EPA in regional circuit courts; or, if publishing a state-specific final action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states forces challenges to be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Oklahoma contends that the final action as it pertains to it is local in nature and should, therefore, be presented in the regional circuit court. The EPA argues that the disapproval action applies nationally, making it reviewable only by the D.C. Circuit. The outcome of this case raises concerns about federalism and forum shopping as well as impacting the effectiveness of the EPA.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.

Facts

The Clean Air Act (“Act”) requires the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to create and regularly update the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”). In 2015, the EPA promulgated new NAAQS for ozone . § 7410(a)(1) of the Act requires each state to submit a State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) to enact and ensure compliance with the new NAAQS. The Act also contains a good neighbor provision to mitigate downwind pollutants. The good neighbor obligation requires states to prevent contributing to pollutant levels in other states.

§ 7607(b)(1) of the Act specifies venue , where a lawsuit can be brought, on the type of action . First, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals must review nationally applicable final actions. Second, regional circuit courts review local or regionally applicable petitions . The third category relates to locally or regionally applicable actions that are based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect. If the EPA determines and publishes in the Federal Register that an action has nationwide scope or effect, petitioners must file in the D.C. Circuit.

In response to the new NAAQS, every state submitted an individual SIP. Each SIP used “state-specific reasoning” to outline the state’s obligations and downwind contributions under the Act. After all plans were submitted, the EPA issued a final order in February 2023 disapproving 21 states’ SIPs. The EPA published disapprovals of the 21 SIPs in one Federal Register notice . The EPA disapproved these SIPs because the states failed to meet the good neighbor obligation. To determine whether SIPs met the good neighbor obligation, the EPA used a four-step analysis. The EPA analyzed downwind areas, identified upwind contributing states, determined the required reduction in emissions to avoid downwind nonattainment, and created measures to meet these reductions. The EPA also analyzed proposed alternatives in the SIPs to ensure national uniformity.

After their SIPs were denied, Oklahoma and Utah, along with numerous industry groups, filed suit against the EPA seeking review of the final order. The EPA moved to dismiss or transfer the petitions to the D.C. Circuit. The EPA relied on the judicial review provision in § 7607(b)(1), arguing that this was a nationally applicable final action.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted the EPA’s motions to transfer venue to the D.C. Circuit. The Tenth Circuit reasoned that because the disapproved SIPs included 8 EPA regions and 10 federal judicial circuits, and a standardized analysis was applied to each SIP, the final action was nationally applicable. Thus, under § 7607(b)(1) the final action must be reviewed by the D.C. Circuit. Oklahoma petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari , seeking review of whether petitioners may challenge the disapprovals of their SIPs in regional circuit courts. On October 21st, the Supreme Court granted a review of this question.

Analysis

NATIONALLY APPLICABLE

Oklahoma argues that the appropriate venue for SIP disapproval challenges is a regional circuit court. Oklahoma claims the § 7607(b)(1) venue analysis depends on the EPA action type. Oklahoma explains that its challenge is under § 7410, which allows the EPA to approve or disapprove individual SIPs. Oklahoma states that the plain text of § 7410 suggests that EPA decisions for SIPs are locally or regionally applicable. Oklahoma points to § 7410(k), where the statute’s plain language only refers to “plan” in the singular regarding EPA review of state plans. Oklahoma asserts that because SIPs only cover one individual state, the disapproval of a SIP only relates to that state. Oklahoma then argues that denying a state plan does not affect any other state or the larger nation. Oklahoma contends the EPA must individually review state plans, consistent with the statute’s legislative assignment to the states to create their own plan. Oklahoma adds that the venue analysis rests on the agency’s action, rather than the manner of publication. Oklahoma argues that the Tenth Circuit’s fixation on the EPA’s consolidation of SIP disapprovals into one Federal Register notice defies § 7607(b)(1). Because of the individualized creation and evaluation of SIPs, Oklahoma argues that the EPA’s approval of SIPs is a local or regionally applicable action.

EPA counters that the disapproval action applies nationally, making it reviewable only by the D.C. Circuit. EPA states § 7607(b)(1) requires challenges to local or regional actions to be brought in “the appropriate circuit.” EPA interprets this to mean that locally or regionally applicable actions must be within only one judicial district’s jurisdiction. Thus, EPA argues that because the final action in contention covered 21 states and 10 judicial districts, the action cannot be locally or regionally applicable. EPA asserts that no provision of the Act prevents the EPA from jointly reviewing SIPs and issuing rulings in one final order. Moreover, EPA contends that this practice adheres to the statute’s legislative intent of national consistency. EPA also points to its established approach of addressing related matters in one decision, emphasizing stability and efficiency. EPA distinguishes other challenged SIPs from those specifically concerning ozone, arguing that the nature of the final action dictates venue. EPA explains that analyzing ozone SIPs uniquely involves broad national policy considerations and evaluating downwind transport to other states. Thus, EPA concludes that this action is nationally applicable.

Oklahoma further alleges that the listed actions in § 7607(b)(1) which must be reviewed by the Federal Circuit are completely distinguishable from SIP disapprovals. Oklahoma also mentions the ejusdem generis canon, which restricts general terms to include only those of the same kind that are specifically listed. Oklahoma argues that this canon advises the court to avoid applying the nationally applicable catchall in § 7607(b)(1) to SIP disapprovals. Oklahoma specifically cites the subsection’s enumeration of SIP approval plans as “categorically reviewable in the regional circuits.” Oklahoma argues that logic dictates EPA hear disapprovals of these same plans in the regional circuits. Oklahoma also mentions that EPA’s regional offices and administrators reviewed the proposed disapproved SIPs.

On the other hand, EPA asserts that the broad catchall in § 7607(b)(1) does apply to the listed actions. EPA contends that Oklahoma ignores Congress’s intentional decision to not include disapprovals in the enumerated list of actions that must be reviewable in regional circuits. EPA asserts that statutory context and precedent supersede the ejusdem generis canon here. EPA alleges that the action can apply nationally under § 7607(b)(1) without applying to all fifty states. EPA cites enumerated actions in the statute that frequently only concern a fraction of the states. EPA also points to specific cases where courts have invoked the nationally applicable catchall, arguing that the SIPs in those cases involve similar nationally applicable actions like the one at issue here.

DETERMINATION OF NATIONWIDE SCOPE OR EFFECT

Oklahoma asserts that the EPA’s disapproval of the SIPs was not made using a determination of nationwide scope or effect. Oklahoma contends that the EPA disapproved these SIPs because of state-specific impacts, not national effects. Oklahoma argues that the standardized analysis for each SIP was not determinative of disapprovals because this same analysis was used for SIP approvals. Oklahoma claims its SIP detailed unique ozone impacts on its downwind neighbors, distinguishing it from other states’ plans. Oklahoma also points to Utah’s SIP to show the fundamental state-specific nature of these SIPs. Thus, Oklahoma alleges that this fact-intensive review of each state’s plan illustrates why the underlying determination was not based on nationwide scope or effect. Oklahoma proposes that the central determination for the EPA’s decision on a SIP was whether contributions from that state were estimated to harm downwind states. To reach this conclusion, Oklahoma explained that the EPA scrutinized facts unique to that state. Further, Oklahoma argues that the EPA failed to demonstrate that national uniformity was the key determination for SIP disapprovals. Oklahoma posits Congress gave the power to review SIP challenges to regional circuit courts because those courts are naturally the most acquainted with the states under their jurisdiction.

EPA responds that its action must be reviewed by the D.C. Circuit because the twenty-one SIP disapprovals were made using a determination of nationwide scope or effect. EPA argues the determination had nationwide scope because it consistently addressed good neighbor provision flaws across all SIPs. Next, EPA asserts that these determinations had direct legal consequences for other states, predominantly downwind ones. EPA explains that the emissions levels of downwind states turn on the EPA’s findings of upwind states’ contributions. Additionally, EPA argues that Oklahoma misinterprets the statutory mandate of § 7607(b)(1). EPA counters that the state-specific analyses are the result of applying national considerations to each state’s individual situation. EPA argues that § 7607(b)(1) does not limit the third category of judicial review to actions exclusively based on the determination of nationwide scope or effect. EPA points to the same subsection’s exception to the sixty-day filing period where Congress used the word “solely.” EPA argues that Congress deliberately omitted the “solely” language in this context. EPA also maintains that this third category only applies when the court holds that the action is locally or regionally applicable. EPA argues that the majority of actions in this category rely on evaluating local and regional facts. Lastly, EPA contends that the agency has a choice in determining whether to publish the determination of nationwide scope and effect, giving the EPA power over venue. Here, the agency published this determination and asserts that in doing so it deliberately avoided giving venue to the regional courts.

Discussion

FEDERALISM CONCERNS

Mike Lee and four other United States Senators (collectively “Mike Lee”), in support of Oklahoma, argue that transferring the review of individual SIP decisions issued in the same Federal Register notice to the D.C. Circuit would undermine the principles of federalism that underpin the Act. Mike Lee contends that each state’s SIP decision requires a fact-intensive inquiry best handled by regional circuit judges that possess experience with the “lands, businesses, and people being regulated.” Mike Lee claims that judges on the D.C. Circuit lack the necessary background knowledge because they are too far removed from the issues and facts at hand. Additionally, Mike Lee asserts that, because SIP decisions usually involve federal intrusion into areas of the law typically reserved for the states, permitting states to appeal these decisions to local judges is essential for fostering the “political buy-in and accountability” that the Act requires.

On the other hand, New York, joined by sixteen other states and three cities (collectively “New York”), on behalf of EPA, contends that consolidating the review of SIPs based on the same underlying rule of the Act prevents inconsistent applications of the Act that may occur if different circuits all decided the same issue at once. The resulting uncertainty, New York argues, would force EPA to litigate the same issue across multiple circuits. Jonathan Cannon and Two Other Former EPA General Counsels (“Jonathan Cannon”) add that litigating related SIP decisions in the D.C. Circuit promotes judicial efficiency by preventing needless litigation and facilitates the creation of a uniform nationwide application of the Act by avoiding inconsistent rulings.

FORUM SHOPPING

In support of Oklahoma, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America claims that the Tenth Circuit’s approach would grant EPA broad discretion to stop local circuit courts from reviewing its actions whenever EPA acts by consolidating local or regional actions into one final “nationally applicable” action, thereby forcing their review into the D.C. Circuit. Mike Lee asserts that this discretion would enable EPA to forum shop , issuing standalone SIP decisions when they like the regional circuit court judges and bundling SIP decisions together whenever they prefer to litigate “in their own backyard.” Mike Lee contends that this possibility threatens core principles of the separation of powers by transferring Congress’s authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts to the executive branch via the EPA.

New York counters that EPA only publishes SIP decisions together when they are related to a common application of the Act, as is the case in the current lawsuit. New York contends that even if EPA did publish unrelated SIP determinations together, they would be considered separate decisions and, therefore, would be reviewed in the regional circuit courts. Jonathan Cannon adds that EPA interprets whether a decision is “nationally applicable” or “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” narrowly, in less than 2% of decisions. This interpretation, Jonathan Cannon contends, protects the role of regional circuit courts' review of EPA’s actions, and mitigates forum shopping concerns. Additionally, Jonathan Cannon claims that Congress intended for the review of nationally important EPA determinations to occur in the D.C. Circuit.

Conclusion

Alexandra Fertig and Garrett Taylor

Alexander Strohl

Additional Resources