Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
Supreme Court of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LL
Term: 2024
Important Dates
Argued: March 25, 2025
Decided: June 18, 2025
Outcome
vacated and remanded
Vote
7-2
Majority
Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Dissenting
Neil Gorsuch • Chief Justice John Roberts

Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC is a case concerning whether the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit must be the venue for small oil refinery challenges to the requirements of the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standard program.

The case was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 18, 2025.[1] The case was argued on March 25, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term.

In a 7–2 opinion, the Court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Court held that although the EPA’s denial of a small refinery’s exemption from the Renewable Fuel Standard applied only to a specific facility, the agency’s decision was “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.” As a result, the Clean Air Act required that such challenges be brought exclusively in the D.C. Circuit. The ruling clarifies that when EPA applies a uniform legal interpretation across exemption petitions, even localized denials may trigger centralized judicial review. This limits the ability of regulated entities to seek review in more favorable regional circuits and reinforces the D.C. Circuit’s role as the primary venue for nationally significant administrative challenges under the Clean Air Act.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned oil refineries seeking exemption from the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standards program. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether venue for the refineries' challenges lies exclusively in the D.C. Circuit

    because the agency's denial actions are 'nationally applicable' or, alternatively, are 'based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.' 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1)."[2]

  • The outcome: In a 7–2 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Why it matters: This decision reinforces the D.C. Circuit’s exclusive role in reviewing nationally significant EPA actions—even when those actions target specific local entities. By holding that exemption denials based on uniform legal and economic reasoning are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect,” the Court limited venue-shopping by regulated parties and clarified the Clean Air Act’s venue rules. The ruling may significantly constrain future challenges to EPA decisions by centralizing review of policy-driven regulatory actions in the D.C. Circuit.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez:[5]

    “ Congress amended the Clean Air Act to establish the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, which requires refiners and importers of transportation fuel to blend increasing amounts of renewable fuels into their products each year. To comply, these companies must either blend renewable fuels themselves or purchase credits called Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) from other companies that do the blending. Recognizing that this might create hardship for small refineries (those processing less than 75,000 barrels of crude oil daily), Congress created three exemptions: an initial blanket exemption through 2011, extensions based on a Department of Energy study, and case-by-case exemptions that small refineries could petition for based on “disproportionate economic hardship.”


    In 2022, the EPA issued two decisions denying multiple small refinery exemption petitions. The April 2022 decision denied 36 petitions for the 2018 compliance year (including some that had previously been granted in 2019), and the June 2022 decision denied 69 petitions covering the years 2016 through 2021. These denials were based on EPA’s new interpretation that required hardship to be caused solely by RFS compliance costs and its “RIN passthrough” economic theory. The affected refineries challenged these denials as impermissibly retroactive, contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the EPA’s adjudications, denied a change of venue to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and remanded, based on its conclusion that the denial was (1) impermissibly retroactive; (2) contrary to law; and (3) counter to the record evidence.[6]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Clean Air Act

    According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Congress designed the Clean Air Act to protect public health and welfare from different types of air pollution caused by a diverse array of pollution sources."[7][8]

    The act requires the federal government to set national air quality standards to reduce air pollution and states to implement the standards through individual plans subject to approval by the EPA. National air quality standards and air pollution regulation are enforced primarily by state governments; states issue permits, monitor compliance, and conduct facility inspections, while the EPA has authority to review state actions. The act also requires regulation of stationary and mobile sources of air pollution and limits on hazardous air pollutant emissions, among other provisions.[9][10]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case: [1]

    • June 18, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
    • March 25, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • October 21, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • May 20, 2024: Environmental Protection Agency appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • November 22, 2023: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the refineries’ petitions for review, vacated the challenged adjudications, denied a change of venue, and remanded the case.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether venue for the refineries' challenges lies exclusively in the D.C. Circuit because the agency's denial actions are 'nationally applicable' or, alternatively, are 'based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.' 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1).[6] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[11]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[12]

    Outcome

    In a 7–2 opinion, the Court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that EPA's denials of small-refinery exemption petitions—though locally or regionally applicable—were “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect,” requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    EPA decided, in light of the foregoing determinations, that it would presumptively deny all the exemption petitions before it. It then considered other, refinery-specific considerations only to confirm that it had no reason to depart from its presumptive disposition. In this posture, EPA’s statutory interpretation and passthrough theory plainly are the most important parts of its reasoning. Or, put another way, where EPA relies on determinations of nationwide scope or effect to reach a presumptive resolution, those determinations qualify as the primary driver of its decision. [6]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts. In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “

    The Clean Air Act’s venue provision works in harmony with its substantive provisions. Throughout, those substantive provisions direct EPA to make certain 'determinations' before it may take certain 'actions.' When it comes to acting on a small refinery’s hardship petition, nothing in the Act’s substantive provisions calls on EPA to make a 'determination of nationwide scope or effect.' Instead, the Act requires the agency to evaluate only whether a particular small refinery seeking an exemption would suffer a hardship without one.’ [6]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2024-2025

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[13]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Supreme Court of the United States, "Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC", June 20, 2025
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "23-1229 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY V. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, LLC" October 21, 2024
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 23-1229," accessed November 25, 2024
    4. ↑ Note: When this case was argued, legal counsel was given by then-acting United States Solicitor General Sarah Harris.
    5. ↑ Oyez, "Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC," accessed November 25, 2024
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Evolution of the Clean Air Act," accessed November 25, 2024
    8. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Clean Air Act Requirements and History," accessed November 25, 2024
    9. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Summary of the Clean Air Act," accessed November 25, 2024
    10. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Air Activity Dashboard," accessed November 25, 2024
    11. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued March 25, 2025
    12. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued March 25, 2025
    13. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Environmental_Protection_Agency_v._Calumet_Shreveport_Refining,_LLC&oldid=10432600"