For some, it can be difficult to imagine fighting against having clean air to breathe. That was the argument at the core of Oklahoma v. EPA, but the actual issue at stake was one of jurisdiction. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sought permission to decide which Clear Air Act (CAA) disputes could be given national rulings in the District of Columbia Circuit Courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) wasn't of the same mind as the EPA. In the 8-0 decision handed down on June 18, 2025, the Court held only part of the lower court's ruling, reversing and remanding the rest. This put the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) disputes back in regional circuit courts, which the SCOTUS justices unanimously agreed was the proper venue. Critics saw the decision as likely to cause circuit splits and encourage forum shopping.
Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the decision. As is typical for a recusing Supreme Court Justice, he did not provide an explanation.
Exhale Stress, Inhale Peace
Concerned with air quality, Congress made significant changes to national policy with amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990. With a focus on National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the EPA's powers were expanded to make the agency a more powerful and effective defender of breathable air.
States are tasked with meeting these and other standards through State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Each state is responsible for meeting the standards set through its SIP by the EPA. While the EPA has oversight regulatory powers, the states are responsible for enforcing the programs and demanding that entities within their jurisdiction comply.
If the standards aren't met, the state risks the loss of federal funds for highways, stringent offset requirements, and the possibility of a federal implementation plan being imposed. The protections and requirements were increased through the Biden administration's "Good Neighbor" national ozone plan, which was intended to tackle the issue of nitrogen oxide pollution from power plants traveling downwind into other states.
Smog, also known as ground-level ozone, results from this pollution and has been linked to respiratory issues, asthma, and other lung diseases. By issuing rulings through the D.C. Circuit Court, the EPA reasoned that local and regional issues would be covered by a national decision. This would lead to less confusion, better application of EPA CAA rules, and cleaner air.
Got Thirteen, Might as Well Use All of Them
In a unanimous decision among the eight voting justices, SCOTUS disagreed with this assessment. In his opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that the EPA's disapproval of a particular SIP was based on data specific to that state. If Ohio wrote an unsatisfactory SIP or was inadequately enforcing the required air quality standards, that was a problem in Ohio.
SCOTUS held the part of the Tenth Circuit ruling that agreed that the EPA had the right to bring CAA and SIP disputes to the appropriate regional circuit court. However, it didn't sign off on letting the EPA have the ability to bring all disputes to the D.C Circuit Courts for a result that could be applied nationally.
There are dozens of pending SIP cases in the circuit courts, and each one means a delay in addressing possible environmental issues. Having the ability to issue a federal plan may have sped things up, but with SCOTUS taking that option off the table, the EPA will have to continue to settle most SIP issues locally.
Related Resources
- Skies Darken for the EPA's Authority (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- Overview: Key Federal Environmental Laws (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
