Undoing Prior Precedent to Following New Precedent: SCOTUS’s Inevitable Trimming of the Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act was designed to protect the air we all breathe, but the Supreme Court may be putting that protection on a collision course with state rights. The 2024 SCOTUS decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overruled the longstanding Chevron precedent, setting the stage for significant shifts in administrative law. [1] The reversal of this long-standing precedent, which granted deference to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes, signals a new judicial philosophy that prioritizes limiting agency discretion. The upcoming Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency case is the latest example of the Supreme Court’s efforts to limit federal agencies’ power following the overturning of Chevron. By shifting judicial review of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decisions to regional courts, the Court is continuing its broader trend of restricting federal regulatory authority—one that could fundamentally reshape the Clean Air Act’s enforcement and weaken national environmental standards.

In efforts to shift power from federal agencies to the judicial system, as asserted in the Chevron decision, SCOTUS’s decision in Oklahoma v. EPA will likely follow suit. Oklahoma v. EPA addresses whether the EPA overstepped its authority as a federal agency by imposing pollution measures on Oklahoma. Before the Chevron doctrine was overturned, SCOTUS had already been retreating from federal agency deference, particularly for the EPA. The 2021 West Virginia v. EPA case centered on whether the Clean Air Act gave the EPA jurisdiction to control power plant carbon emissions. SCOTUS ruled that the EPA could not regulate carbon emissions, limiting the agency’s lawmaking authority. [2] This case also established the “major questions” doctrine, which limits when federal agencies can make decisions on issues with significant impact. [3] West Virginia v. EPA was a stepping stone for SCOTUS to overturn the decades-long Chevron precedent in 2024. SCOTUS has also previously limited the scope of EPA policies. The Sackett v. EPA decision narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act by redefining what qualified as “waters of the United States,” thus altering what regulations the EPA could impose. [4] Since the Oklahoma v. EPA case centers again on the reach of federal agencies while specifically targeting the EPA, SCOTUS could use this as another opportunity to limit jurisdiction. 

As part of the Oklahoma v. EPA decision, SCOTUS will likely severely restrict the Clean Air Act’s “Good Neighbor” Plan. The Good Neighbor Plan was established because air pollution carries across state lines, complicating responsibility and policies in America’s federalism system. [5] The EPA was explicitly granted the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision. [6] The Good Neighbor Plan contains a provision for states to create implementation plans to control ground level ozone pollution from nitrogen oxides. [7] If a state did not meet certain standards, their plan would be rejected, and they would have to adhere to the EPA’s national rule instead. This type of policy had been established in the 2013 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation case, which ruled that the EPA can enforce a federal implementation plan if it deems the state implementation plan insufficient. [8] In 2015, the EPA fully denied 19 state plans through the Good Neighbor Provision, meaning those states would be subject to the EPA’s federal implementation plan. Oklahoma was one of these 19 states. Oklahoma v. EPA specifically examines if it is constitutional for the federal court system to review federal agency action that only affects one state or region, even if the action is published alongside policy impacting other states. This will determine more specifically, if a federal agency has the authority to deny a state implementation plan or not. If SCOTUS finds that the federal agencies do not, it will allow regional courts to rule on an issue that inherently crosses state lines. This effectively overturns the EPA v. EME Homer City Generation decision.

Given the recent history with West Virginia and Chevron, it is likely that SCOTUS will rule in favor of Oklahoma, restricting the authority of federal agencies. This decision will likely lead to more similar legal disputes across regional courts that SCOTUS, rather than the EPA, will eventually resolve. Although the EPA is a federal agency, there would be inconsistent interpretations of their federal guidelines due to the variances in state implementation plans. [9] The Clean Air Act was meant to establish federal standards, but instead would be subject to state-by-state jurisdiction in the courts. Businesses looking for more favorable air pollution policies could relocate to a state with softer regulations. They could also pressure their own state governments to change the air quality standards, potentially leading to health risks for the public. If SCOTUS rules in favor of Oklahoma, it won’t just limit the EPA– it will redefine the power of federal agencies, leaving environmental protection increasingly at the mercy of state policies and legal uncertainty. 

 Edited by Harshini Sadanala

[1] “Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024).” Justia Law. Accessed February 28, 2025. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/603/22-451/. 

[2] Hamm, Andrew. “West Virginia V. Environmental Protection Agency.” SCOTUSblog. Accessed February 28, 2025. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/west-virginia-v-environmental-protection-agency/. 

[3] “The Major Questions Doctrine.” CRS Reports. Accessed February 28, 2025. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12077. 

[4] “Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. ___ (2023).” Justia Law. Accessed March 1, 2025. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/598/21-454/#:~:text=Justia%20Summary,the%20United%20States%2C%E2%80%9D%2033%20U.S.C. 

[5] “Good Neighbor Plan for 2015 Ozone NAAQS.” EPA. Accessed February 28, 2025. https://www.epa.gov/Cross-State-Air-Pollution/good-neighbor-plan-2015-ozone-naaqs. 

[6] “Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).” Justia Law. Accessed March 1, 2025. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/549/497/. 

[7] “Cross-State Air Pollution.” EPA. Accessed February 28, 2025. https://www.epa.gov/Cross-State-Air-Pollution/cross-state-air-pollution#:~:text=The%20%22Good%20Neighbor%22%20Provision,Air%20Quality%20Standards%20(NAAQS). 

[8] “Envtl. Prot. Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, L. P., 572 U.S. 489 (2014).” Justia Law. Accessed February 28, 2025. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/489/. 

[9] Showalter, J. Michael. “New Scotus Case Involving Venue for Clean Air Act Challenges Matters to Your Business.” Legal News & Business Law News, October 23, 2024. https://natlawreview.com/article/new-scotus-case-involving-venue-clean-air-act-challenges-matters-your-business.