Oklahoma v. EPA (23-1067)

argument 23-1067

Oklahoma v. EPA

Supreme Court of the United States 47 min 6 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 legal dispute over EPA’s disapproval of state implementation plans?

John G. Roberts 0:00

You'll hear argument next in case twenty three ten sixty seven, Oklahoma versus the Environmental Protection Agency,

Mansinghani 0:07

Mr. Mansing Hani. Thank you, Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. EPA actions to approve or disapprove state implementation plans are the prototypical action reviewed in the regional circuit. As I believe Mr Stewart confirmed in the previous argument, all parties agree at this point that if EPA had disapproved Oklahoma's and Utah's plans in separate Federal Register notices, Those would be locally applicable actions. So when it comes to applicability, the only disputed question is whether the disapprovals of these state plans are transformed into a single national action because EPA chose to process and publish them together with the disapprovals of nineteen other states. But the text of the Act's venue provision directs the courts to look at the statutory authority under which EPA took its action, not the form of publication.

Mansinghani 0:58

Here Section seventy four ten authorizes EPA to take local action, approval or disapproval of state implementation plans. EPA's position that the form of publication dictates the action's applicability for venue purposes, has no basis in the text of the statute, and indeed is at war with it. That leaves EPA's backup that the Oklahoma and Utah disapproval actions must be reviewed in the D.C. circuit because they are based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect. That exception, however, only applies to actions where EPA arrives at a generic conclusion that applies uniformly to all states and that forms a dispositive reason for the agency's action, irrespective of local factors. As Gorsuch's and Kavanaugh's questions earlier today indicate, EPA's reading, applying that exception any time EPA articulates a rubric or a standard and then applies it to a local circumstance would mean essentially every local EPA action is one that is based on a nationwide determination.

Mansinghani 1:59

the court should reverse the decision below and send this case back to the tenth circuit. I welcome the court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:05

You heard the last argument. How did factually, how does uh the your case differ from uh the refinery case?

Mansinghani 2:13

So one major difference is that uh state plan approvals and disapprovals are explicitly listed in the locally and regionally applicable uh uh part of the statute, in the second sentence of the statute. That's not true of um of renewable fuel standard exemptions. So that makes this like a really easy case uh for it for us to say this is locally or regionally applicable.

Elena Kagan 2:39

Nature of the presumption here different. Meaning Um there were two arguably in the first case nationwide rules when having to do with focusing just on Um compliance with legal requirement in the second the presumption that you couldn't have hardship. Here it it it it has been strange in my mind because you don't actually have to follow the EPA's formula. Correct?

Mansinghani 3:10

That's correct. We don't have to follow their modeling, we don't have to follow their framework, and EPA was very clear about that.

Elena Kagan 3:18

whatever their framework is, since you don't have to follow it It's hard to see how it has a nationwide effect, isn't it?

Mansinghani 3:26

That's correct. It it's not even meets their definition of a determination, which is the conclusive ending of a controversy. If we didn't have to follow their framework, it's hard to see how it's even a The

Elena Kagan 3:36

only argument that I see that might be different is that one percent rule that they have. And there's at least a bunch of amicai who say that in absolutely every Um challenge to a SIP. that the one percent rule is being fought about. So could one say that that's determined if in a way that's nationwide?

Mansinghani 4:01

So EPA was also clear that with respect to the 1 percent rule, it has, quote, not imposed a requirement that States use a 1 percent threshold. That is page 9373 of the final Federal Register notice. The other problem is that EPA didn't identify that as one of the nationwide determinations when they were invoking the venue exception. So you have a channel problem there, and you also have a problem that the statute requires EPA to make