EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., Docket No. 23-1229
Listen to the episode on Spotify
Courts often wrestle with subtle rules about where a case should be heard. Here, the debate was over a single refinery’s request for relief under the Clean Air Act and whether the EPA’s denial should land in a local court or in Washington.
The Supreme Court noted that saying “no” to one refinery is a decision about that one plant. But because the EPA used nationwide rules to reach its decision, the case belongs in the D.C. Circuit instead of the Fifth Circuit in Texas. In the end, the Justices wiped out the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and sent the whole matter back for another look under those national guidelines.
Summary of the Case
In 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency issued two omnibus notices denying 105 small refineries' petitions for hardship exemptions under the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Program (RFP). Small refineries, defined as those processing no more than 75,000 barrels per day, may petition EPA for an exemption from blending obligations "for the reason of disproportionate economic hardship." EPA's denials rested on (1) a uniform interpretation that hardship must be caused by RFP compliance, and (2) an economic model—its "RIN passthrough" theory—presuming no small refinery bears a disproportionate cost. EPA characterized its denials as reviewable only in the D.C. Circuit, either as "nationally applicable" actions or, alternately, as locally applicable actions "based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect." Petitions were filed instead in multiple regional circuits. All but the Fifth Circuit either dismissed or transferred the cases; the Fifth retained venue, rejected EPA's statutory arguments on venue, and vacated EPA's denials on the merits. EPA sought the Supreme Court's review to resolve a circuit split over venue under the Clean Air Act.
Opinion of the Court
Justice Thomas, writing for a 7–2 majority (Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson), held that EPA's denials of individual exemption petitions are "locally or regionally applicable" actions that nonetheless fall within the Clean Air Act's "nationwide scope or effect" exception, thus channeling venue to the D.C. Circuit. First, the "action" at issue is EPA's denial of each refinery's petition, as defined by the RFP exemption provision, not EPA's choice to aggregate denials. Those denials are locally applicable because each applies only to a particular refinery. Second, although locally applicable actions generally go to regional circuits, the law directs that any locally applicable action "based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect" (and accompanied by EPA's published finding) must be reviewed in the D.C. Circuit. A "determination" is any agency conclusion, and it is of nationwide scope or effect if it applies across the country and forms the core driver of the action. Here, EPA's uniform interpretation of "disproportionate economic hardship" and its RIN passthrough theory apply to all refineries and served as the primary basis for its denials (with refinery-specific facts considered only to confirm a presumption). The Fifth Circuit therefore erred in retaining venue. Judgment vacated; remanded for transfer and further proceedings.
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, dissented. He agreed the individual petition denials are locally applicable. But he would confine the "nationwide scope or effect" exception to cases in which a substantive Clean Air Act provision itself calls on EPA to make a nationwide determination. Since the small-refinery exemption scheme requires only refinery-specific determinations—whether each petitioning facility would suffer disproportionate economic hardship—Gorsuch would leave venue in the Fifth Circuit and employ a bright-line, text-rooted test rather than the majority's multistep "core driver" inquiry.
Understanding Venue Rules for EPA Decisions: When Local Cases Go National
The Clean Air Act establishes a three-part framework for determining where challenges to EPA decisions must be heard:
- Nationally applicable actions (like setting new air quality standards) must be challenged in the D.C. Circuit Court
- Locally or regionally applicable actions (like approving a state's implementation plan) ordinarily go to the appropriate regional circuit court
- However, any locally applicable action "based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect," if EPA publishes that finding, must also be heard in the D.C. Circuit
To identify what constitutes an "action," courts look to the specific Clean Air Act provision authorizing it—in this case, EPA's duty to respond to small refinery exemption petitions. An action is "based on" a nationwide determination only if that determination is the primary, "core" justification driving the agency's decision—not just one of many factors considered. The term "determination" simply means an agency's settled conclusion.
Courts independently review whether EPA's action truly rested on such a nationwide determination, while giving EPA discretion to invoke the exception. This structure ensures that nationally significant policy decisions are centralized in the D.C. Circuit, while truly local matters remain in regional courts unless they genuinely rest on a nationwide policy determination.