City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Administrative State Banner - Circle Graphic - V2.jpg
Supreme Court of the United States
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]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerns the Clean Water Act. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether the Clean Water Act allows EPA (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in NPDES permits that subject permit holders to enforcement for exceedances of water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform."[2]
  • The outcome: In a 5-4 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[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
    Administrative State Icon Gold.png
    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

    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:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether the Clean Water Act allows EPA (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in NPDES permits that subject permit holders to enforcement for exceedances of water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.

    [6]

    		”

    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

    See also: Supreme Court cases, 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

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 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. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "23-753 SAN FRANCISCO V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY," accessed June 3, 2024
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 23-753," accessed July 10, 2024
    4. ↑ 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.
    5. ↑ Oyez, "City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency," accessed July 10, 2024
    6. ↑ 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.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued October 16, 2024
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued October 16, 2024
    9. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Editorial Content
    Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Alexis Thacker • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=City_and_County_of_San_Francisco_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency&oldid=10279510"