US Sup.Ct. Slip Opinion of June 18, 2025
Ruling: When the federal Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) makes a localized or regional “determination” of fact or law that primarily drives a decision it makes under the federal Clean Air Act, the federal Court of Appeals having jurisdiction over that locality or region, and not the District of Columbia’s federal Court of Appeals, is the appropriate venue for appeals from the EPA’s decision. The Court unanimously interpreted the venue statute within the federal Clean Air Act in this fashion. The Court found that the EPA’s denial of two states’ applications for approval of their individualized plans to remedy ozone pollution within their states were localized, and not nationally applicable decisions. Nor were the decisions, according to the Court, primarily driven by a “nationwide” “determination” of fact or law by the EPA. Justice Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts filed a special concurrence, disagreeing with the extensive, semantic analysis of the individual words in the Clean Air Act’s venue statute followed by the other seven Justices in the companion Calumet Shreveport Refining Case, but nevertheless agreeing with the result they reached in this case.
RECENT RULINGS 