The U.S. Supreme Court favored Oklahoma and Utah against the Environmental Protection Agency in an 8-0 decision on Wednesday, with Justice Samuel Alito not participating.
The case, Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency, was a dispute that began over clean air obligations, but what ultimately brought it to the higher court was the issue of exclusive jurisdiction.
In 2015, the EPA established new clean air obligations nationwide and required states to submit plans outlining how they would comply. Utah, Oklahoma and 19 other states had their plans to reduce pollution across state lines denied.
Two years ago, both states separately took the EPA to court in their shared regional circuit court in Denver, Colorado. The federal agency countered the cases, combining them and arguing that they should be moved to the D.C. Circuit because the augmented air quality standards were a national change. The Colorado court allowed the transfer.
The states disagreed, taking it to the Supreme Court.
Just because the EPA published a single Federal Register notice to multiple states does not justify moving the cases to Washington, D.C., the states argued. Both Utah and Oklahoma want the cases returned to their shared 10th Circuit.
And the Supreme Court agreed.
“The two SIP ( or state implementation plan) disapprovals here are undisputedly locally or regionally applicable actions. A SIP is a state-specific plan, so an EPA disapproval on its face applies only to the State that proposed the SIP,” the ruling said. “EPA’s and the Tenth Circuit’s contrary arguments fail.”
“The Tenth Circuit erred in holding that petitioners’ challenges should be reviewed in the D. C. Circuit. EPA’s disapprovals of the Oklahoma and Utah SIPs are locally or regionally applicable actions. And, these cases are not ones where the ‘nationwide scope or effect’ exception applies,” Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion added. “Accordingly, as with most locally or regionally applicable actions, petitioners’ challenges can be heard only in a regional Circuit. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Following the ruling, Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and his office, including Utah Solicitor General Stanford E. Purser, who was on the defense team in the case, praised the ruling.
“The Court agreed with Utah’s argument involving the Clean Air Act that local courts should handle local issues, and the federal government should collaborate with the states — not ignore their unique differences," Brown said in a statement to the Deseret News.
“I am also proud of Utah’s Solicitor General, Stan Purser, for his critical role on the legal team that helped secure this win. ... We are also grateful to the Trump Administration’s EPA for reconsidering its ruling that required litigation in the first place, and look forward to our continued partnership on behalf of Utah.”
