No. 23-753

City and County of San Francisco, California v. Environmental Protection Agency

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-01-12
Status: Judgment Issued
Type: Paid
Amici (13)Relisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: clean-water-act discharge-limitations enforcement environmental-protection-agency environmental-regulation national-pollutant-discharge-elimination-system npdes-permits permit-shield water-quality-standards
Key Terms:
Environmental Securities Privacy
Latest Conference: 2024-05-23 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Clean Water Act allows EPA (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in NPDES permits that subject permitholders to enforcement for exceedances of water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Congress designed the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act) to ensure that anyone holding a discharge permit issued under the Act has notice of how much they must control their discharges to comply with the law. The CWA requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and authorized states provide this notice by prescribing specific pollutant limitations in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits they issue. Consistent with its text, this Court and the Second Circuit have read the Act to require EPA and states to develop specific limits to achieve goals for surface waters, called water quality standards. Parting with these decisions, the Ninth Circuit held here that EPA may issue permits that contain generic prohibitions against violating water quality standards. Rather than specify pollutant limits that tell the permitholder how much they need to control their discharges as required by the CWA, these prohibitions effectively tell permitholders nothing more than not to cause “too much” pollution. These generic water quality terms expose San Francisco and numerous permitholders nationwide to enforcement actions while failing to tell them how much they need to limit or treat their discharges to comply with the Act. The question presented is: Whether the Clean Water Act allows EPA (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in NPDES permits that subject permitholders to enforcement for exceedances of water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.

Docket Entries

2025-04-07
Judgment Issued.
2025-03-04
Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-753_f2bh.pdf'>opinion</a> of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined, in which Gorsuch, J., joined as to all but Part II, and in which Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson, JJ., joined as to Part II. Barrett, J., filed an opinion dissenting in part, in which Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, JJ., joined.
2024-10-16
Argued. For petitioner: Tara M. Steeley, Deputy City Attorney, San Francisco, Cal. For respondent: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C
2024-09-25
Reply of petitioner City and County of San Francisco filed. (Distributed)
2024-09-03
Brief amici curiae of Small Business Owners and Operators filed. (Distributed)
2024-09-03
2024-09-03
2024-09-03
Brief amici curiae of Environmental and Community Organizations filed. (Distributed)
2024-09-03
Amicus brief of Washington, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and District of Columbia submitted.
2024-09-03
Amicus brief of State of California submitted.
2024-08-30
Brief amicus curiae of Orange County Coastkeeper filed. (Distributed)
2024-08-30
Brief amici curiae of Orange County Coastkeeper filed. (Distributed)
2024-08-26
Brief of respondent Environmental Protection Agency filed. (Distributed)
2024-08-26
Brief of United States Environmental Protection Agency submitted.
2024-08-08
CIRCULATED
2024-07-29
Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
2024-07-29
Record received from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The record is electronic and is available on PACER.
2024-07-26
Amicus brief of Hayden Area Regional Sewer Board submitted.
2024-07-26
Amicus brief of Local Government Legal Center; National Association of Counties; National League of Cities; International Municipal Lawyers Association; League of California Cities submitted.
2024-07-26
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 16, 2024.
2024-07-26
2024-07-26
Brief amici curiae of The National Association of Home Builders, et al. filed.
2024-07-26
Brief amici curiae of Public Wastewater and Stormwater Agencies and Municipalities filed.
2024-07-26
2024-07-26
2024-07-19
Brief of City and County of San Francisco submitted.
2024-07-19
2024-07-19
2024-07-19
Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
2024-06-04
Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 19, 2024. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 26, 2024.
2024-05-30
Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
2024-05-28
Petition GRANTED.
2024-05-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2024.
2024-05-08
Supplemental brief of petitioners City and County of San Francisco filed. (Distributed)
2024-04-30
Reply of petitioner City and County of San Francisco filed. (Distributed)
2024-04-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/16/2024.
2024-04-12
Brief of respondent Environmental Protection Agency in opposition filed.
2024-03-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 12, 2024
2024-03-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 13, 2024 to April 12, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-02-12
Brief amici curiae of Public Wastewater and Stormwater Agencies and Municipalities filed.
2024-02-12
2024-02-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 13, 2024
2024-02-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 12, 2024 to March 13, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-01-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 12, 2024)

Attorneys

City and County of San Francisco
Andrew Christopher SiltonBeveridge & Diamond, P.C., Petitioner
Tara Michelle SteeleyOffice of the City Attorney, Petitioner
Tara Michelle SteeleyOffice of the City Attorney, Petitioner
Andrew Christopher SiltonBeveridge & Diamond, P.C., Petitioner
Environmental and Community Organizations
Kirti DatlaEarthjustice, Amicus
Kirti DatlaEarthjustice, Amicus
Environmental Protection Agency
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Hayden Area Regional Sewer Board
Preston Neal CarterGivens Pursley LLP, Amicus
Preston Neal CarterGivens Pursley LLP, Amicus
Local Government Legal Center; National Association of Counties; National League of Cities; International Municipal Lawyers Association; League of California Cities
Jonathan Gerard Andre MonetteBest Best & Krieger, LP, Amicus
Jonathan Gerard Andre MonetteBest Best & Krieger, LP, Amicus
National Mining Association, et al.
Misha TseytlinTroutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Amicus
Misha TseytlinTroutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Amicus
Orange County Coastkeeper
Sarah Joyce SpinuzziOrange County Coastkeeper, Amicus
Sarah Joyce SpinuzziOrange County Coastkeeper, Amicus
Public Wastewater and Stormwater Agencies and Municipalities
David Yolun ChungCrowell & Moring, LLP, Amicus
David Yolun ChungCrowell & Moring, LLP, Amicus
Small Business Owners and Operators
Keith Paul RichardArchipelago, Amicus
Keith Paul RichardArchipelago, Amicus
State of California
Christopher David HuCalifornia Department of Justice, Amicus
Christopher David HuCalifornia Department of Justice, Amicus
The National Association of Home Builders, et al.
John A. SheehanEarth & Water Law LLC, Amicus
John A. SheehanEarth & Water Law LLC, Amicus
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Washington, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and District of Columbia
Peter Benjamin GonickAttorney General of Washington, Amicus
Peter Benjamin GonickAttorney General of Washington, Amicus