In the legal world, June can be a highly anticipated month because the U.S. Supreme Court issues several opinions, which can bring sweeping changes to statutory interpretation or other legal doctrines. You may recall the landmark Loper Bright decision was announced in late June 2024, which overruled the 40-year-old Chevron deference doctrine. For June 2025, there may not be the same type of headline grabbing decision, but there are a few opinions worth noting.
In Seven Cnty. Infrastructure Coal. et al. v. Eagle Cnty., Colo., et al., the Court strongly reinforced that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a procedural statute and does not impose any specific or substantive environmental protections. As described by the Court, “NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock. The goal of the law is to inform agency decision making, not to paralyze it.” In evaluating the facts of the case, the Court made clear that an agency preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is afforded some discretion when deciding the scope of the environmental analysis. Importantly, NEPA does not require an agency to consider the consequences for other speculative projects unrelated to the project under review and outside the agency’s regulatory scope. This decision should improve the NEPA review process for any applicable projects and give agency’s more confidence in limiting the scope of any EIS, which will shorten project timelines and reduce costs.
The Court also addressed the proper venue for certain challenges of EPA actions under the Clean Air Act in two cases: Oklahoma, et al. v. EPA, and EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC. Both cases concerned whether the challenged EPA actions are “nationally applicable” with the proper venue being in the D.C. Circuit Court, or whether the actions are “locally or regionally applicable” with proper venue in a regional circuit court, like the 5th Circuit for Texas.
In Oklahoma, the Court confirmed that EPA’s disapprovals of state implementation plans (SIPs) are individual agency actions with only regional applicability, even if aggregated with over 20 other states in one published rule. The Court’s analysis is consistent with arguments offered by TCC and other members of industry that were accepted by the 5th Circuit when challenging EPA’s actions regarding a SIP submitted by TCEQ.
In Calumet, the Court continued analyzing the proper venue for an EPA action under the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the Court added a third consideration when evaluating which court may review an agency action that appears to be local/regional but is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect. In these scenarios, like denying one refinery an exemption from the renewable fuel requirements, then the proper venue is in the D.C. Circuit because the agency relied on its nationally applicable statutory interpretation and general factors that are applied to all refineries, regardless of geographic location. For Clean Air Act litigation, the Court’s distinctions in these cases will be important for future cases challenging EPA’s actions and may result in more cases starting out in regional circuit courts instead of the D.C. Circuit.
The U.S. Supreme Court will now take a summer break and begin hearing oral arguments again later in the fall. TCC was hopeful the U.S. Supreme Court would hear oral argument and consider the 5th Circuit’s decision in ExxonMobil, et al. v. Env. Tex. Citizen Lobby, Inc., which has implications on the proper standing requirements to bring a Clean Air Act citizen-suit. In May, TCC and other trade associations submitted a joint amicus brief in support of the Court taking up the appeal. Unfortunately, the Court denied ExxonMobil’s petition on June 30th right before the summer break, which means the 5th Circuit’s decision and $14.25 million civil penalty assessment will remain.