City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency
City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency | |
Term: 2024 | |
Important Dates | |
Argued: October 16, 2024 Decided: March 4, 2025 | |
Outcome | |
reversed | |
Vote | |
5-4 | |
Majority | |
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh | |
Dissenting | |
Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson |
City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 4, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 16, 2024.
In a 5-4 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that challenged end-result permitting provisions exceed the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority under the Clean Water Act.[1]
The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.
Why it matters: This case signals a continued judicial focus on limiting agency discretion and emphasizing statutory text. The decision reinforces that agencies must operate within the clear boundaries defined by Congress, potentially impacting future rulemaking and strengthening judicial oversight of the administrative state.
Background
Administrative State |
---|
Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
• Judicial deference • Nondelegation • Executive control • Procedural rights • Agency dynamics |
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia |
Case summary
The following are the parties to this case:[3]
- Petitioner: City and County of San Francisco
- Legal counsel: Tara Michelle Steeley (Office of the City Attorney)
- Respondent: United States
- Legal counsel: Sarah M. Harris (acting United States Solicitor General)[4]
The following summary of the case was published by Oyez, a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law:[5]
“ |
The city of San Francisco operates a combined sewer system that collects both sewage and stormwater runoff. During heavy rains, the system can exceed its capacity, resulting in combined sewer overflows (CSOs) that discharge pollutants into the Pacific Ocean. The Clean Water Act requires cities like San Francisco to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for such discharges. San Francisco has been implementing a CSO control plan since the late 1960s and completed construction of its current CSO control facilities in 1997. In 2019, the EPA and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a new NPDES permit for San Francisco's Oceanside treatment facility. San Francisco is challenging two provisions in this permit: (1) narrative prohibitions against violating water quality standards, and (2) a requirement that San Francisco update its long-term CSO control plan. San Francisco argues that these provisions are inconsistent with the Clean Water Act and EPA regulations. The EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board denied San Francisco's administrative appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied San Francisco’s petition for review, holding that the Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to include in the Oceanside NPDES permit the challenged provisions, and that EPA's decision to do so was rationally connected to evidence in the administrative record.[6] |
” |
To learn more about this case, see the following:
Timeline
The following timeline details key events in this case:
- March 4, 2025: In a 5-4 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[1]
- October 16, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
- May 28, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
- January 8, 2024: The City and County of San Francisco appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- July 31, 2023: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied San Francisco's petition for review.
Questions presented
The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]
Questions presented:
|
Oral argument
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 16, 2024.
Audio
Audio of oral argument:[7]
Transcript
Transcript of oral argument:[8]
Outcome
In a 5-4 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that challenged end-result permitting provisions exceed the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority under the Clean Water Act. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court.[1]
Opinion
In the court's majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:[1]
“ |
In sum, we hold that §1311(b)(1)(C) does not authorize the EPA to include 'end-result' provisions in NPDES permits. Determining what steps a permittee must take to ensure that water quality standards are met is the EPA’s responsibility, and Congress has given it the tools needed to make that determination. If the EPA does what the CWA demands, water quality will not suffer. [6] |
” |
—Justice Samuel Alito |
Dissenting
In the court's majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote:[1]
“ |
The answer, according to the Court, is that a restriction does not count as a 'limitation' if the permittee must identify the steps necessary to comply with it. Ante, at 10. San Francisco’s permit only authorizes discharges that do not degrade water quality below the applicable standard. It is up to the city, however, to formulate a plan to achieve that result. The city’s plan, the Court asserts, is a 'limitation on its discharges, but the permit condition is not. See ibid. As best I can tell, the Court thinks that only the “direct source of restriction or restraint”—apparently, the most specific restriction—counts as a “limitation.” Ibid. The Court offers nothing to substantiate this proposition, and it is wrong as a matter of ordinary English. It is commonplace for 'limitations' to state 'that a particular end result must be achieved and that it is up to the [recipient] to figure out what it should do.' Ibid [6] |
” |
—Justice Amy Coney Barrett |
Text of the opinion
Read the full opinion here.
October term 2024-2025
The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[9]
See also
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agenc (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, decided March 4, 2025
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "23-753 SAN FRANCISCO V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY," accessed June 3, 2024
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 23-753," accessed July 10, 2024
- ↑ Note: At the time that the Court heard this case's argument, legal counsel was provided by then-U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar. Prelogar stepped down from her position on January 20, 2025, following the swearing-in of President Donald Trump (R) to his second term. After taking office, Trump appointed Sarah M. Harris to serve as the acting U.S. Solicitor General until her successor is confirmed and sworn in.
- ↑ Oyez, "City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency," accessed July 10, 2024
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued October 16, 2024
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued October 16, 2024
- ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
|
|