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 RobertsClarence ThomasSamuel AlitoNeil GorsuchBrett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Sonia SotomayorElena KaganAmy Coney BarrettKetanji 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