View source for EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining

{{Short description|US Supreme Court case on venue for challenging EPA regulations under the Clean Air Act}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=November 2024}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
| Litigants = EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining
| FullName = Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC
| Prior = ''Calumet Shreveport Refining v. EPA'' 86 F.4th 1121 ([[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|5th Cir.]] 2023)
| LawsApplied = [[Clean Air Act (United States)|Clean Air Act]]
}}
'''''EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining''''' (Docket No. 23-1229) is a pending [[United States Supreme Court]] case on whether the [[Clean Air Act (United States)|Clean Air Act]] requires challenges to the [[Environmental Protection Agency|Environmental Protection Agency's]] [[Renewable Fuel Standard (United States)|Renewable Fuel Standard]] program to be heard in the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|US District of Columbia Circuit]] or the [[United States courts of appeals|court of appeals]] in the locality of the affected party.
== Background ==
Under {{USCSub|42|7607|b|1}} of the [[Clean Air Act (United States)|Clean Air Act]], those seeking [[judicial review]] of air quality and emissions standards set by the [[Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) should file their case with the [[United States courts of appeals|federal court of appeals]] that governs the affected party if the regulations are "locally or regionally applicable." However, if the regulation "is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect," then the challenge should instead be heard by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|US District of Columbia Circuit]].<ref name=":1">{{Cite court|litigants=Calumet Shreveport Refining v. United States Environmental Protection Agency|vol=86|reporter=F.4th|opinion=1121|court=5th Cir.|date=22 November 2024}}</ref>
As part of the [[Energy Policy Act of 2005]], the EPA created the [[Renewable Fuel Standard (United States)|Renewable Fuel Standard]] program, requiring transportation fuel sold in the United States to contain a portion of renewable fuels. The EPA is required to provide temporary exemptions to small refineries if compliance with the program would cause "disproportionate economic hardship." While the EPA is required to respond to petitions claiming such hardship within ninety days of their filing, the agency frequently issues decisions far beyond this deadline.<ref name=":1" />
In 2019, the EPA granted thirty-one small refinery exemptions to compliance during the prior year, but the D.C. Circuit ordered those petitions to be reconsidered in response to the Tenth Circuit's 2021 ruling in ''[[Renewable Fuels Association]] v. EPA''. In April 2022, the EPA subsequently denied these refineries' petitions after re-analyzing their legal claim to exemptions. In June 2022, the EPA denied an additional sixty-nine petitions by applying its new framework, which discards the [[United States Department of Energy|US Department of Energy's]] scoring matrix in favor of solely evaluating the costs of compliance.<ref name=":1" />
=== Fifth Circuit ===
When six of these refineries sought judicial review of their hardship petition denials, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals]] deemed itself the appropriate venue because overturning the denials would only affect the parties of this case, rather than requiring the EPA to use a new regulatory framework in all future assessments of hardship petitions. The Fifth Circuit subsequently ruled that the EPA could not surprise small refineries by retroactively penalizing them for their good-faith reliance on its scoring matrix during prior years. Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit ruled that EPA's new approach violated the [[Administrative Procedure Act]] for being arbitrary and capricious because Congress set a standard of "disproportionate economic hardship," whereas evaluating the costs of compliance only examines the extent of economic hardship, not its proportionality.<ref name=":1" />
Circuit Judge [[Patrick Higginbotham]] dissented from this ruling, highlighting that the April and June 2022 joint denials of hardship petitions involved refineries across the United States, showcasing a nationally applicable standard. In support of this point, Higginbotham noted that the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|Third]], [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|Seventh]], and [[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|Tenth Circuits]] had all transferred their similar cases to the D.C. Circuit.<ref name=":1" />
==== Forum shopping ====
In law, [[forum shopping]] involves litigants taking actions to have their case heard in the court they believe is most likely to provide a favorable judgment. In recent years, the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas|US District Court for the Northern District of Texas]] has controversially assigned cases to the judges of whichever of its seven divisional courthouses the case was filed in. As a result, a party that files their case in [[Amarillo, Texas]], will always have their case heard by District Judge [[Matthew Kacsmaryk]], allowing them to achieve a highly predictable ruling.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Waldman |first=Michael |date=20 March 2024 |title=End 'Judge Shopping' |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/end-judge-shopping |access-date=9 November 2024 |work=[[Brennan Center for Justice]]}}</ref> In March 2024, the [[Judicial Conference of the United States]] recommended that district courts should randomly assign cases across their courthouses, but the Northern District of Texas has explicitly rejected this guidance.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Raymond |first=Nate |date=1 April 2024 |title=Texas Federal Court Will Not Adopt Policy Against 'Judge Shopping' |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/texas-federal-court-will-not-adopt-policy-against-judge-shopping-2024-03-30/ |access-date=9 November 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> While this case does not address the broader issue of judge shopping, it has been described as testing the federal judiciary's tolerance of this practice.<ref name=":0" />
== Supreme Court ==
On October 21, 2024, the Supreme Court granted [[certiorari]] to review the Fifth Circuit's judgement on the appropriate venue for such challenges. Prior to oral arguments, [[NPR]] legal correspondent [[Nina Totenberg]] highlighted that four of the Supreme Court's nine justices ([[John Roberts]], [[Clarence Thomas]], [[Brett Kavanaugh]], and [[Ketanji Brown Jackson]]) previously served on the D.C. Circuit, suggesting that they would prefer that court to hear such cases.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Totenberg |first=Nina |date=21 October 2024 |title=A Frustrated Supreme Court to Look at One Version of Judge Shopping |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/g-s1-28919/supreme-court-judge-shopping |access-date=9 November 2024 |work=[[NPR]]}}</ref>
== References ==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court]]
[[Category:United States environmental case law]]
[[Category:United States Environmental Protection Agency]]