Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association
Term: 2020
Important Dates
Argument: April 27, 2021
Decided: June 25, 2021
Outcome
Reversed
Vote
6-3
Majority
Neil Gorsuch • Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Amy Coney Barrett • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan

HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 27, 2021, during the court's October 2020-2021 term.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit's ruling, holding that a small refinery that previously received a hardship exemption may obtain an extension even if it experienced a lapse in exemption coverage during the previous year. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The Clean Air Act's biofuels mandate to replace crude oil with renewable fuels allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to grant temporary exemption extensions to small refineries if compliance with the law would cause disproportionate economic hardship. Three small refineries, collectively known as HollyFrontier, applied for and received extensions. A group of renewable fuels producers, collectively known as the Renewable Fuels Association, challenged the orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, claiming that the EPA's orders caused the Association economic injury by way of lower prices, revenues, and higher competition. The 10th Circuit vacated the EPA's orders and remanded the matters, holding that the EPA had exceeded its authority. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issues: The case concerned extensions of exemption orders under the Clean Air Act and qualification requirements for those extensions.
  • The questions presented: “In order to qualify for a hardship exemption under §7545(o)(9)(B)(i) of the Renewable Fuel Standards, does a small refinery need to receive uninterrupted, continuous hardship exemptions for every year since 2011.”[2][3]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit's ruling.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.[4]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    In the mid-2000s, Congress amended the Clean Air Act with legislation in order to replace specified amounts of crude oil with renewable fuels, also referred to as a biofuels mandate. The legislation included a temporary exception for small refineries if complying with the legislation in a given year would impose disproportionate economic hardship. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was authorized to implement the legislation and grant exceptions to qualifying small refineries and granting extensions of those exceptions. The EPA granted extensions of the hardship exemption to three small refineries–Cheyenne, Woods Cross, and Wynnewood (collectively, "HollyFrontier").[4]

    A group of renewable fuels producers (collectively, "Renewable Fuels Association") challenged the EPA's orders when they discovered the extensions through public company filings and news reports and appealed them to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The EPA and HollyFrontier opposed the appeal. The 10th Circuit ruled that the Renewable Fuels Association had standing to sue because they demonstrated injury related to the orders: lower prices, lower revenues, and increased competition. The court also agreed with the Renewable Fuels Association's arguments that the EPA exceeded its authority in granting the extensions to HollyFrontier and in granting them to address economic hardship outside of compliance with the Clean Air Act. The court disagreed with the Renewable Fuels Association's assertions that the EPA acted arbitrarily while holding that the EPA abused its discretion by failing to address the extent to which HollyFrontier was able to recoup compliance costs by raising their prices for fuel. The 10th Circuit vacated the EPA extension orders to HollyFrontier and remanded for further proceedings.[4]

    Questions presented

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

    Questions presented:
    “ In order to qualify for a hardship exemption under §7545(o)(9)(B)(i) of the Renewable Fuel Standards, does a small refinery need to receive uninterrupted, continuous hardship exemptions for every year since 2011.[5] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 ruling, the court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit's ruling, holding that a small refinery that previously received a hardship exemption may obtain an extension even if it experienced a lapse in exemption coverage during the previous year. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “ Congress requires most domestic refineries to blend a certain amount of ethanol and other renewable fuels into the transportation fuels they produce. But when it first adopted these mandates, Congress temporarily exempted small refineries across the board. Looking beyond that initial period, Congress authorized individual small refineries to apply for additional hardship “extensions” from the federal government “at any time.” The question before us is whether a small refinery that manages to comply with renewable fuel mandates in one year is forever forbidden from applying for an “extension” in any future year.


    ... The respondents have not shown that EPA’s approval of the petitioners’ extension requests was in excess of the Agency’s statutory authority. 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(C). To the extent the court of appeals vacated EPA’s orders on this ground, the judgment is reversed.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

    In her dissent, Justice Barrett wrote:[1]

    “ When Congress amended the Clean Air Act to add the Renewable Fuel Program (RFP), it gave small refineries a temporary exemption from compliance. Congress then vested the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with authority to grant “extension[s] of the exemption” in certain instances. The question in this case is straightforward: Does this provision limit EPA to prolonging exemptions currently in place, or does it enable EPA to provide exemptions to refineries that lack them? The statute’s text and structure direct a clear answer: EPA cannot “extend” an exemption that a refinery no longer has. Because the Court’s contrary conclusion caters to an outlier meaning of “extend” and clashes with statutory structure, I respectfully dissent.[5] ”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2020-2021

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. 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.[8]

    The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.

    The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were removed from the argument calendar.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 U.S. Supreme Court, HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association, decided June 25, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association: Questions presented," accessed January 13, 2021
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association: Petition for a writ of certiorari," September 4, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, Renewable Fuels Ass'n v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency," decided January 24, 2020
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed April 28, 2021
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," accessed April 28, 2021
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court," accessed April 20, 2015
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=HollyFrontier_Cheyenne_Refining,_LLC_v._Renewable_Fuels_Association&oldid=9117320"