ELR Citation: 55 ELR 20075
No(s). 23-1229 (U.S. Jun 18, 2025)

The U.S. Supreme Court, 7-2, held that EPA's 2022 denials of six small refinery exemption petitions were locally or regionally applicable actions that fell within the "nationwide scope or effect" exception under the CAA, requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit. The small refineries challenged the denials in the Fifth Circuit. EPA moved to transfer the suit to the D.C. Circuit, arguing its actions were nationally applicable. The Fifth Circuit retained jurisdiction, finding EPA's actions were locally or regionally applicable because their "legal effect" was limited to the petitioning refineries and were not based on any determination of nationwide scope or effect because the Agency still examined refinery-specific facts before it issued the denials. The Supreme Court found EPA's denials were locally or regionally applicable actions because by definition, the Agency's denial of a single refinery's exemption petition only applies to that refinery, which is a particular entity located in a particular place. But it further held EPA's denials were based on determinations of nationwide scope or effect because the Agency itself found and published that its interpretation of the phrase "disproportionate economic hardship" and its renewable identification number passthrough theory were determinations of nationwide scope that formed the core basis for its denials, and both are conclusions that apply generically to all refineries regardless of where they are located. Finding that the Fifth Circuit erred in denying EPA's request to transfer, the Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C.J., joined.