Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency
 | |
| Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency | |
| Term: 2024 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: March 25, 2025 Decided:June 18, 2025 | |
| Outcome | |
| reversed and remanded | |
| Vote | |
| 8-0 | |
| Majority | |
| Clarence Thomas • Chief Justice John Roberts • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson | |
| Concurring | |
| Neil Gorsuch • Chief Justice John Roberts | |
Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency is a case concerning whether a final agency action by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act can be challenged in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The case was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 18, 2025. The case was argued on March 5, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term.[1]
In an 8-0 opinion, the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from this case and did not take part in the judgment. The Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) disapprovals of Oklahoma’s and Utah’s state implementation plans (SIPs) were locally or regionally applicable actions, not based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect, and thus subject to review only in the regional circuit courts. The Court interpreted the venue provision of the Clean Air Act to limit challenges to such EPA actions to the appropriate regional circuits rather than the D.C. Circuit, which has jurisdiction only over nationally applicable actions or those based on nationwide determinations. Practically, this ruling restricts where states and stakeholders may bring legal challenges to EPA decisions, potentially reducing centralized review in the D.C. Circuit and emphasizing the regional nature of many Clean Air Act enforcement actions.[1]
states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states."[2]
The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.
Why it matters: This ruling narrows the scope of centralized judicial review in the D.C. Circuit by reaffirming that Clean Air Act challenges to state-specific EPA decisions must be brought in regional circuit courts—even if the agency applies a consistent national framework. The ruling emphasizes that venue depends on the specific action’s geographic applicability, not on EPA’s use of uniform methods or bundling multiple decisions into a single Federal Register notice. This limits EPA’s ability to consolidate judicial review in the D.C. Circuit and strengthens states’ ability to challenge federal environmental decisions in their home circuits.
Background
| Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
| • Judicial deference • Nondelegation • Executive control • Procedural rights • Agency dynamics |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia |
Case summary
The following are the parties to this case:[3]
- Petitioner: Oklahoma, et al.
- Legal counsel: Mithun Mansinghani (Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP), Stanford Edward Purser (Office of Utah Attorney General), Misha Tseytlin (Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP), Emily Church Schilling, Kristina Renee Van Bockern (Holland & Hart LLP)
- Respondent: Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
- Legal counsel: D. John Sauer (United States Solicitor General)[4]
The following summary of the case was published by Oyez:[5]
| “ | In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strengthened its national air quality standards for ozone, requiring states to submit implementation plans that would prevent their emissions from significantly impacting other states’ air quality. In February 2023, the EPA issued a final rule disapproving the plans submitted by 21 states, including Oklahoma and Utah, after evaluating them using a four-step framework designed to address interstate pollution. Oklahoma and Utah, along with various industry groups, challenged the EPA’s disapproval of their plans in their respective regional circuit courts. The EPA responded by moving to transfer these cases to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, arguing that because the disapprovals were published together in a single Federal Register notice and used a consistent analytical approach, they must be reviewed by the D.C. Circuit rather than regional courts.
|
” |
To learn more about this case, see the following:
Timeline
The following timeline details key events in this case:
- June 18, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court reversedand remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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.
- January 8, 2024: The City and County of San Francisco appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- July 31, 2023: The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted the EPA's motions to dismiss or transfer in part and transfer the petitions to the D.C. Circuit.
Questions presented
The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]
Questions presented:
|
Oral argument
Audio
Audio of oral argument:[7]
Transcript
Transcript of oral argument:[8]
Outcome
In an 8‑0 opinion, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, holding that EPA’s disapprovals of the Oklahoma and Utah SIPs are locally or regionally applicable actions not based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and therefore properly reviewed in a regional circuit. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from this case and did not take part in the judgment.[1]
Opinion
In the court's majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:[1]
| “ |
The Tenth Circuit erred in holding that petitioners’ challenges should be reviewed in the D. C. Circuit. EPA’s disapprovals of the Oklahoma and Utah SIPs are locally or regionally applicable actions. And, these cases are not ones where the 'nationwide scope or effect' exception applies. [6] |
” |
| —Justice Clarence Thomas | ||
Concurring opinion
Justice Neil Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[1]
| “ |
The Court holds that the proper venue for this litigation lies in an appropriate regional circuit, not in the D. C. Circuit. I agree. As I explain in today’s companion case, however, the Court and I arrive at that conclusion by different paths. See EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., (GORSUCH, J., dissenting). Accordingly, I am unable to join the Court’s opinion, but I am pleased to concur in its judgment. [6] |
” |
| —Justice Neil Gorsuch | ||
Text of the opinion
Read the full opinion here.
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.[9]
See also
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Supreme Court of the United States, "Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23-1067", June 18, 2025
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "23-1067 OKLAHOMA V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY" October 21, 2024
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 23-1067," accessed November 25, 2024
- ↑ Note: When this case was argued, legal counsel was given by then-acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris.
- ↑ Oyez, "Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency," accessed November 25, 2024
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued March 25, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued March 25, 2025
- ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
