Supreme Court Issues Split Rulings on Clean Air Act Venue Disputes
On June 18, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions in two significant Clean Air Act cases — EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining and Oklahoma v. EPA — clarifying the appropriate venue for legal challenges to certain final EPA actions. In Calumet, the Court held that EPA’s universal denials of small-refinery-exemption (SRE) petitions under the Renewable Fuel Standard program were “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect,” and thus challenges may only be brought in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. By contrast, the Court in Oklahoma held that challenges to EPA’s disapproval of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) belong in the applicable regional circuit courts because the agency’s determinations were based on facts and rationales unique to each state. Although some gray areas remain, the twin decisions put several long-standing venue issues to rest and should encourage quicker resolution of Clean Air Act regulatory challenges.
States, Advanced Reactor Developer Challenge NRC’s Authority to License Advanced Reactors
The outcome of a lawsuit filed at the end of 2024 challenging the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (“NRC’s or the Agency’s”) authority under a 1956 rule to license certain nuclear facilities could have important implications for advanced reactor licensing processes and the supply of electricity in the U.S. in the years ahead.
Jarkesy’s Potential Implications for EPA Administrative Proceedings
On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided SEC v. Jarkesy,[1] holding that when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleges a defendant has violated securities antifraud provisions and seeks civil penalties, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial in federal court under the Seventh Amendment. The ruling restricts the SEC’s use of its own in-house administrative tribunal with its own administrative law judges (ALJs), which the SEC has historically used to pursue antifraud claims. While the Court’s ruling focuses on the SEC, the principles underlying the decision may be applied more broadly to restrict the ability of other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to pursue civil penalties via their own administrative proceedings.
Fifth Circuit Limits EPA’s Attempts to Regulate PFAS Under Toxic Substances Control Act in Inhance Technologies v. EPA
On March 21, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated two U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) orders under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), holding that EPA had exceeded its statutory authority when it issued the orders in an attempt to regulate the manufacture of per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) by petitioner Inhance Technologies, LLC (Inhance). The Fifth Circuit’s decision comes after EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance announced its National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives for Fiscal Years 2024 – 2027, which involve increased emphasis on addressing PFAS exposure and contamination through enforcement actions and potential additional regulations.
FERC v. Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC Saga Ends With Default Judgment Against Powhatan Energy Fund
On March 22, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Court) granted the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) Motion for Default Judgment and entered a default judgment against Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC (Powhatan Energy Fund). The Court awarded FERC $3,465,108 in disgorgement and $16,800,000 in civil penalties.
Third Circuit Rejects Challenges to Decades-Old Consent Decree
On January 6, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected several challenges to a consent decree (CD) originally entered in 1996. United States v. Brace et al. involved conduct on defendant’s farm that allegedly violated the 1996 consent decree. Defendant argued that the CD was unenforceable because it was ambiguous and that a government official had approved of the allegedly violative actions. The Third Circuit rejected these arguments and upheld the district court’s ruling that defendant had violated the CD.
D.C. Circuit Rejects Challenge to CERCLA Site Listing
On July 8, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) rejected a challenge to the listing of a groundwater contamination plume on the National Priorities List (NPL). The decision in Daikin Applied Americas, Inc. v. EPA reaffirms the difficulty that attends challenging NPL listings as well as the wide latitude Congress granted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to define the scope of Superfund sites during the listing process. (more…)
Supreme Court Upends EPA’s Broad Claims of Climate Regulatory Authority
On Thursday, June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in West Virginia v. EPA, holding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exceeded its statutory authority in adopting the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP). The 6–3 decision may limit EPA’s ability to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions comprehensively. A summary of the Court’s reasoning is set out below, followed by four “key takeaways.” (more…)
