Earlier this month in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, the U.S. Supreme Court broadly interpreted the meaning of “relating to” in the federal officer removal statute.  In doing so, it vacated the judgment of the Fifth Circuit that held defendant had not sufficiently demonstrated that plaintiffs’ suit was “for or relating to” the acts it performed under the authority of a federal officer.  The Court looked to the ordinary meaning of “relating to” across various contexts and held that defendant had shown the instant lawsuit implicated acts “that are closely connected to the performance of its federal duties.” Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Federal Jurisdiction, Federal Procedure, Louisiana, Oil and Gas, Permits, Procedure, Removal, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court

On June 30, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the Port of Tacoma (the “Port”) and SSA Terminals LLC's (“SSA”) petition for writ of certiorari to review the 9^th Circuit’s decision in Port of Tacoma v. Puget Soundkeeper Alliance addressing whether the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) authorizes citizens to enforce conditions of state-issued pollutant discharge permits adopted under state law that impose a greater scope of coverage than required by the CWA.  The 9th Circuit answered this question in the affirmative, holding that Washington's Industrial Stormwater General Permits (“ISGP”), a CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit, required the Port and SSA to have the necessary stormwater controls across the entire West Sitcum Terminal (the “Terminal”).  The Supreme Court's recent decision to deny certiorari leaves litigants open to a patchwork of Circuit determinations on the scope of the CWA’s citizen suit provision.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Citizen Suit, Citizens Suit, Clean Water Act, Ninth Circuit, NPDES, Permits, Private Right of Action, Stormwater, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court, Water

On June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court decided EPA v Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC et al., and its companion case Oklahoma et al. v. EPA, clarifying the tripartite framework for determining venue in Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”) litigation.  Looking at the CAA's venue provision (42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1)), the Court explained that if a challenge is to an “nationally applicable” EPA action the challenge should be directed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the matter ends there.  But, if the challenge is to a “locally or regionally applicable” EPA action, then typically those challenges belong in the relevant regional Circuit Court.  However, when a “locally or regionally applicable” action falls within the “nationwide scope or effect” exception, which requires the action be (1) “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” and (2) accompanied by an EPA finding to the same effect, the Court instructed that the matter should be routed back to the D.C. Circuit.  Applying this understanding of CAA's venue provision, the Court reached different conclusions in Calumet and Oklahoma, finding respectively that the “nationwide scope or effect” exception applied in one instance and not in the other. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Agency Action, Air, Clean Air Act, D.C. Circuit, EPA, Federal Procedure, Procedure, Refinery, Renewable Fuel Standard, State Implementation Plans, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court, Venue

On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court issued it opinion in Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, holding fuel producers had standing—and had specifically demonstrated redressability—to challenge California-specific regulations EPA approved under the Clean Air Act.  The Court’s opinion  reversing and remanding to the D.C. Circuit left the merits of the case for another day, but acknowledged that the regulations at issue may be rescinded shortly, mooting most, if not all, of the parties’ controversy. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Agency Action, Air, California, Clean Air Act, Climate Change, D.C. Circuit, Emissions, EPA, Federal Procedure, Greenhouse Gas, Legislation, Oil and Gas, Standing, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court

On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, reversing the D.C. Circuit’s determination that the Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) issued by the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (the “Board”) in connection with an approximately 88-mile railroad line in northeastern Utah violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).  Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the Court, concluded the NEPA question presented “is not close” and the Board was “absolutely correct” in declining to evaluate “environmental effects from separate projects upstream or downstream from the project at issue” in the EIS.    Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Appeals, Administrative Hearing, Administrative Procedures Act, D.C. Circuit, Decisions of Note, Federal Circuit, Loper Bright, NEPA, Oil and Gas, Pipelines, Railroad, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court

On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court unanimously decided Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, No. 22-1074, holding that county-level legislation that imposes conditions on the receipt of building permits, here the imposition of traffic impact fees, may amount to a taking under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment when the conditions do not have an “essential nexus” to the government’s land use interest and a “rough proportionality” to the proposed development’s impact on that interest.  The ruling overturned decisions from lower courts that had held that the Takings Clause operates to invalidate only administrative conditions imposed by local land use agencies, not legislative enactments like the traffic impact fee imposed by the County in this case.   Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Supreme Court, Takings, Takings Clause, United States Supreme Court

In Sackett v. EPA, 2023 WL 3632751 (U.S. May 23, 2023), the Supreme Court limited the authority of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to regulate wetlands by embracing a “continuous surface connection test” to determine if adjacent wetlands are subject to the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and explicitly rejecting Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test from Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 754 (2006). While the 9-0 decision was unanimous in judgment by holding that the Sacketts’ wetland was not subject to federal jurisdiction, the court was sharply divided as to the test to determine when an adjacent wetland qualifies as a Water of the United States (or “WOTUS”).  A five-justice majority held that the CWA’s jurisdiction includes only adjacent wetlands that are indistinguishable from WOTUS due to a continuous surface connection. Under this framework, for an adjacent wetland to be subject to CWA jurisdiction, the adjacent body of water must constitute a WOTUS, and the adjacent wetland must have a continuous surface connection with the WOTUS such that it is difficult to determine where the body of water ends and the wetland begins.  The majority’s holding casts serious doubt on the continuing viability on the final WOTUS rule that became effective earlier this year and relied in part on the “significant nexus” test that EPA and the United States Army Corps have applied through guidance since the Rapanos decision. See 88 Fed. Reg. 3004 (Jan. 18, 2023). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Clean Water Act, Decisions of Note, EPA, Major Questions Doctrine, Navigability, Ninth Circuit, Rapanos, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court, Wetlands

This post was authored by Trang Do, a summer associate.

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court limited the authority of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce greenhouse gases by setting emission guidelines for existing power plants, characterizing the energy generation shifting strategy proposed in the Clean Power Plan (CPP) as an overreach of the agency’s power. In a 6-3 decision, with the three liberal justices dissenting, the Court held that the authority to adopt a regulatory program that would significantly alter how the nation’s energy is generated fell under an “extraordinary case” of the major questions doctrine. West Virginia v. EPA 597 U. S. ____ (2022). The major questions doctrine requires that a federal agency have “clear congressional authorization” when acting on issues of great “economic and political significance.” Id. (citing Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 324). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Clean Air Act, Climate Change, Decisions of Note, Electric, Emissions, Energy, EPA, Greenhouse Gas, Legislation, Refinery, Rulemaking, Supreme Court, West Virginia

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit and held that Section 717f(h) of the Natural Gas Act authorizes Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) certificate holders to “condemn all necessary rights-of-way, including land in which the State holds an interest.” See PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC v. New Jersey, Slip Op. No. 19-1039, (June 29, 2021). This holding is consistent with history and precedent regarding the superior power of federal eminent domain. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Condemnation, Eminent Domain, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, Marcellus Shale, Natural Gas, Natural Gas Act, New Jersey, Oil and Gas, Pipelines, Public Lands, Sovereign Immunity, Supreme Court, Takings, Takings Clause, Third Circuit, United States Supreme Court

On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court, reversing the Tenth Circuit, held that a small refinery that had previously received an exemption from certain requirements of the renewable fuel standard (“RFS”) program was eligible for an extension of that exemption, even if it had had a lapse in coverage in previous years. See HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC, v. Renewable Fuels Association, et al., Slip Op. 20-472 (June 25, 2021). Petitioners, three small fuel refineries, had each applied for a hardship exemption under the RFS program, and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) had granted each request. Those exemptions were then challenged by a group of renewable fuel producers. The Tenth Circuit ultimately sided with the renewable fuel producers, holding that because each refinery had allowed its previously held exemption to lapse at times in the past, each was no longer eligible to receive an extension of the original exemption. After hearing oral argument in April 2021, the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and held that the text of the statute does not require that the exemption be continually held in order to remain valid. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Energy, EPA, Oil and Gas, Pipelines, Refinery, Renewable Fuel Standard, Supreme Court, Tenth Circuit, United States Supreme Court