The Environmental Protection Agency's ability to set “end-result” requirements is "not necessary to protect water quality." So wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the majority opinion for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision issued on March 4, 2025.
While not as simple as that phrase might make it seem, the decision benefits the plaintiffs — a strange group of bedfellows — and may have lasting repercussions on wastewater discharges.
Clean Water Is a Good Thing, Right?
As part of the Clean Water Act of 1972, the EPA is charged with regulating wastewater emissions through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. In 2019, the agency put a pair of new generic requirements in place for certain permit recipients.
The first prohibited facilities from making discharges of wastewater that contributed to a violation of any applicable water standard. The second decreed that a facility couldn't release discharge that created pollution contamination or nuisance under applicable state laws.
San Francisco filed suit against the EPA, alleging that the blanket generic conditions, as applied to its Oceanside plant, were too vague and would leave the city open to litigation. The Oceanside plant releases its discharges into the Pacific Ocean. Mining interest groups and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers filed briefs supporting San Francisco's arguments.
New York, Boston, and Buffalo also joined San Francisco. The EPA maintained that the generic standards were necessary when lacking information needed to develop limitations for effluents.
San Francisco's efforts did not yield early success. Their challenge of the generic conditions to the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board was rejected. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the petition San Francisco had for its wastewater discharge system, siding with the EPA. The divided panel felt that the EPA has the right to impose any limitation to protect water quality.
SCOTUS Dives In
SCOTUS found the EPA's regulations more problematic than the lower courts did.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts held that the EPA overstepped its authority to enforce the Clean Water Act of 1972 through generic regulations. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kegan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent.
In his opinion, Justice Alito wrote that the EPA was guilty of forcing San Francisco and other cities to clean up pollution without telling them how to do so. Likening it to a state demanding schools meet certain math proficiency standards and principals leaving it up to the teachers to figure out how, Justice Alito insisted that the EPA needs to have specific regulations for each wastewater facility and take into account that other entities may contribute to the pollution that wastewater facilities are blamed for.
The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision.
The EPA Has Some Work to Do
Justice Alito's assertion that the EPA must deal with each facility individually comes at a time when the agency has been threatened by President Donald Trump with cuts of 65% to either their personnel or their budget. Cutbacks could lower the efficacy of the EPA and its ability to perform its current duties.
Related Resources
- What Is Environmental Law? (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
- Skies Darken for the EPA's Authority (FindLaw's Supreme Court)
- Overview: Key Federal Environmental Laws (FindLaw's Business Laws and Regulations)
