In Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining,the Supreme Court is weighing whether legal challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) denial of Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) exemptions for small oil refineries must be filed exclusively in the D.C. Circuit under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
At the center of the case is a statutory provision that governs judicial review of EPA actions under the CAA. It provides that petitions challenging agency actions that are "nationally applicable" or "based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect" must be brought in the D.C. Circuit. In contrast, actions with only "local or regional applicability" may be reviewed in the appropriate regional circuit. This case comes to the Court after the EPA's denial of 105 exemption petitions submitted by small refineries under the CAA's RFS program. The RFS requires fuel producers to blend renewable fuels into transportation fuel or purchase renewable identification number credits. However, small refineries may petition for an exemption if compliance would cause a "disproportionate economic hardship."
Six refineries challenged the EPA's denials in the Fifth Circuit. The EPA moved to transfer the cases to the D.C. Circuit, arguing the denials were "nationally applicable" or "based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect." The Fifth Circuit denied the motions, holding that the legal effect of the denials was confined to the individual refineries and therefore regionally applicable. The court ultimately vacated the EPA's denials and remanded the matters for further agency consideration.
The Supreme Court took up the matter to resolve the venue dispute and clarify the scope of the CAA's jurisdictional provisions. During oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart contended that permitting review in multiple regional circuits risks inconsistent outcomes and inefficient judicial review. He argued that the EPA's determinations were based on uniform standards and thus should be reviewed centrally in the D.C. Circuit.
However, several Justices expressed skepticism. Justice Gorsuch noted that, historically, similar hardship determinations have been handled by regional circuits, and requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit would represent "a complete sea change." He also questioned the complexity such a rule would inject into an area of law that the Court has said should be "easy to determine."
Justice Barrett echoed concerns about the lack of a clear rule for determining venue at the outset of the litigation. Meanwhile, Justice Jackson questioned how the determinations could be deemed "local" if they were made using uniform, nationwide criteria. Justices Alito and Kagan explored the broader applications of the EPA's underlying rationale—namely, that hardship must result specifically from blending requirements, and that small refineries can generally pass compliance costs to customers. Justice Kavanaugh raised the tension between applying a nationwide standard to region-specific circumstances, a factor that may influence whether the subject EPA actions are of nationwide scope or effect.
The case could have significant implications for administrative law and the judicial review of federal agency decisions. A ruling requiring exclusive venue in the D.C. Circuit could centralize oversight of EPA actions but limit regional (or more local) access to the courts. Conversely, affirming the Fifth Circuit's approach may preserve local court access while raising the possibility of conflicting interpretations across jurisdictions.
A decision is expected later in the term. Stay tuned for Dykema's analysis of the Court's opinion.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
