No. 23-1067

Oklahoma, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Lower Court: Tenth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-04-01
Status: Judgment Issued
Type: Paid
Amici (4)Relisted (4) Experienced Counsel
Tags: circuit-split clean-air-act d-c-circuit epa-action epa-authority federal-register judicial-review regional-circuit state-implementation-plan
Key Terms:
Environmental AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity ERISA
Latest Conference: 2024-10-18 (distributed 4 times)
Related Cases: 23-1068 (Vide)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a final action by EPA taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the D.C. Circuit because EPA published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Under the Clean Air Act, each state must adopt an implementation plan to meet national standards, which EPA then reviews for compliance with the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410. In 2023, EPA published disapprovals of 21 states’ plans implementing national ozone standards. It did so in a single Federal Register notice. The Act specifies that “[a] petition for review of the [EPA’s] action in approving or promulgating any implementation plan ... or any other final action of the [EPA] under this Act ... which is locally or regionally applicable may be filed only in” the appropriate regional circuit, while “nationally applicable regulations ... may be filed only in” the D.C. Circuit. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). Parties from a dozen states sought judicial review of their respective state plan disapprovals in their appropriate regional circuits. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits held that the implementation plan disapprovals of states within those circuits are appropriately challenged in their respective regional courts of appeals. In the decision below, the Tenth Circuit held that challenges to the disapprovals of Oklahoma’s and Utah’s plans can only be brought in the D.C. Circuit, explicitly disagreeing with the decisions of its sister circuits. The question presented is: Whether a final action by EPA taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the D.C. Circuit because EPA published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states. (i)

Docket Entries

2025-07-21
Judgment Issued.
2025-03-28
Letter from petitioners in 23-1067 notifying Court of March 25, 2025 decision of the 5th Circuit in cited case, 23-60069, Texas v. EPA, filed (opinion attached).
2025-03-28
Letter Notifying of Fifth Circuit Opinion of Oklahoma, et al. submitted.
2025-02-19
CIRCULATED
2025-02-18
Reply of petitioners PacifiCorp, et al. filed (as to 23-1068). (Distributed)
2025-02-18
Reply of petitioners Oklahoma, et al. filed (as to 23-1067). (Distributed)
2025-02-18
Reply of Oklahoma, et al. submitted.
2025-02-18
Reply of PacifiCorp, et al. submitted.
2025-02-12
Record received electronically from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and available with the Clerk.
2025-02-12
Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
2025-01-28
Response in opposition to motion to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance from petitioners PacifiCorp, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2025-01-28
Response of PacifiCorp, et al. to motion submitted.
2025-01-27
Response in opposition to motion to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance from petitioners Oklahoma, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2025-01-27
Response of Oklahoma, et al. to motion submitted.
2025-01-24
Amicus brief of States of New York, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Mary¬land, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin; the District of Columbia; Harris County, Texas; and the City of New York submitted.
2025-01-24
Motion of PacifiCorp, et al. for divided argument submitted.
2025-01-24
Amicus brief of Former EPA General Counsels Jonathan Cannon, E. Donald Elliott, and Avi Garbow submitted.
2025-01-24
Motion of the Respondents to hold the Briefing Schedule in Abeyance of EPA, et al. submitted.
2025-01-17
Brief for the Federal Respondents of EPA, et al. submitted.
2024-12-20
Brief amici curiae of U.S. Senator Mike Lee, et al. filed.
2024-12-20
Amicus brief of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America submitted.
2024-12-20
Amicus brief of U.S. Senators Mike Lee, Cynthia Lummis, Roger Marshall, and Ted Budd submitted.
2024-12-20
Amicus brief of State of Arkansas, et al. submitted.
2024-12-20
Brief amici curiae of U.S. Senator Mike Lee, et al. (as to 23-1067) filed.
2024-12-13
Brief of PacifiCorp, et al. submitted.
2024-12-13
2024-12-13
Joint Appendix submitted.
2024-12-13
Brief of petitioners PacifiCorp, et al.( In 23-1068) filed.
2024-12-13
Brief of petitioners Oklahoma, et al. filed.
2024-12-13
2024-12-13
2024-10-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2024.
2024-10-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2024.
2024-09-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-05-30
2024-05-29
Rescheduled.
2024-05-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2024.
2024-05-22
Waiver of the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition pursuant to Rule 15.5 filed by petitioner.
2024-05-01
2024-05-01
2024-04-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 21, 2024.
2024-04-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 1, 2024 to May 21, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-03-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 1, 2024)

Attorneys

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
Jeremy Charles MarwellVinson & Elkins LLP, Amicus
Jeremy Charles MarwellVinson & Elkins LLP, Amicus
EPA, et al.
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Former EPA General Counsels Jonathan Cannon, E. Donald Elliott, and Avi Garbow
Matthew Jeffrey SandersStanford Law School Environmental Law Clinic, Amicus
Matthew Jeffrey SandersStanford Law School Environmental Law Clinic, Amicus
Deborah A. SivasStanford Law School Enviromental Law Clinic, Amicus
Deborah A. SivasStanford Law School Enviromental Law Clinic, Amicus
Oklahoma, et al.
Mithun MansinghaniLehotsky Keller Cohn LLP, Petitioner
Mithun MansinghaniLehotsky Keller Cohn LLP, Petitioner
PacifiCorp, et al.
Misha TseytlinTroutman Pepper Locke LLP, Petitioner
Misha TseytlinTroutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Petitioner
State of Arkansas, et al.
Nicholas Jacob BronniSolicitor General of Arkansas, Amicus
Nicholas Jacob BronniSolicitor General of Arkansas, Amicus
State of Utah
Stanford Edward PurserOffice of Utah Attorney General, Petitioner
Stanford Edward PurserOffice of Utah Attorney General, Petitioner
Emily Church SchillingHolland & Hart LLP, Petitioner
Emily Church SchillingHolland & Hart LLP, Petitioner
Kristina Renee Van BockernHolland & Hart LLP, Petitioner
Kristina Renee Van BockernHolland & Hart LLP, Petitioner
States of New York, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Mary¬land, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin; the District of Columbia; Harris County, Texas; and the Cit
Barbara Dale UnderwoodSolicitor General, Amicus
Barbara Dale UnderwoodSolicitor General, Amicus
U.S. Senators Mike Lee, Cynthia Lummis, Roger Marshall, and Ted Budd
R. Trent McCotterSeparation of Powers Clinic, Scalia Law School, Amicus
R. Trent McCotterSeparation of Powers Clinic, Scalia Law School, Amicus