EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. (23-1229)

argument 23-1229

EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C.

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 43m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue in EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining?

John G. Roberts 0:00

You will hear argument first this morning in case twenty three twelve twenty nine, Environmental Protection Agency versus Calumet

Unknown 0:06

Shreveport refining. Mr Stewart? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, this case provides a paradigmatic example of the result that the Clean Air Act's venue provision was intended to avoid. The April and June 2022 denial actions at issue here resolved a total of 105 exemption petitions filed by refineries in 18 different states within eight judicial circuits. The agency based those denials on a new statutory Interpretation and economic analysis it had not previously applied. Under the approach to venue adopted by the Court of Appeals, however, several different regional circuits would have been required to consider substantially similar challenges to the agency's approach, wasting judicial resources and creating a heightened risk of inconsistent outcomes.

Unknown 0:55

Congress amended the venue provision in 1977 to prevent those results. results. The judgment of the Court of Appeal should be reversed. I welcome the Court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 1:05

Uh Mr Stewart, are there any limits to uh aggregating uh uh uh different claims. Uh and thereby um determining venue uh in DC?

Unknown 1:17

I don't know that there are limits to the agency's authority to Publish different decisions in the same Federal Register notice. We do think that there is some room for judicial scrutiny of whether what the agency describes as a single action should be regarded in that way. And so, for example, if the agency in one Federal Register notice disapproved a SIP proposed by the State of Ohio and simultaneously denied an exemption request for a small refinery in Louisiana. You couldn't cogently regard that as a single action, even if it was published in the same Federal Register notice.

Clarence Thomas 1:52

Well in let's just take this case with the refineries. What would be l uh a limiting principle if you could just simply aggregate re uh decisions about refineries?

Unknown 2:01

I I think you could. I think in this case the the agency had particularly good reasons for publishing them together because it had issued proposed denials based on a proposal to change its methodology and it didn't want to issue the denials until it was ready to finalise the methodology and and that's why we wound up with something of a of a backlog.

Clarence Thomas 2:23

Does it have to be a change? What about an application of an existing uh uh rule or uh determination?

Unknown 2:29

I think the agency's typical practice has been to do those one at a time or in small groups when the when the agency is simply applying a principle of federal law or a rule of federal law that has previously been established and isn't likely to be contested on judicial review. But that is discretionary, isn't it? That is not a real limit. I I think you are right that it is up to the the agency's discretion whether to aggregate in those circumstances?

Sonia Sotomayor 2:56

And Mr. Stewart, historically they've they've taken these one by one and and SIPs and uh hardship determinations have been dealt with at the at the uh regional circuit level. This

Unknown 3:07

is kind of a new development. Well I think with respect to ozone transport rules in particular, that is re review of CIP provisions that purport to uh carry out State's good neighbor obligations to prevent uh downwind pollution. I think the norm in that area has been aggregation. Well uh I I dealt with a

Sonia Sotomayor 3:29

bunch of SIP approvals on the on the circuit court and and now you've bundled them and done it differently, but up until now these things with refineries and and with uh and with SIPs have been done done historically. Oh, Oh I think you are right.

Unknown 3:43

I think you are right with respect to the refineries that they have been done seriadum in the past. But the court

Sonia Sotomayor 3:49

So this is kind of new, and I guess I am asking what's changed other than EPA's decision to bundle them together?

Unknown 3:55

I I think what changed was that the agency was changing its methodology. And the Court of Appeals, the Fifth Circuit, noted that EPA in these denial actions had abandoned or rejected an adjudicative methodology that it had been applying for more than a decade.