“The Court agreed with Utah’s argument involving the Clean Air Act that local courts should handle local issues, and the federal government should collaborate with the states—not ignore their unique differences,” said state Attorney General Derek Brown.
The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with Oklahoma and Utah in a Clean Air Act-related lawsuit that raised questions about where legal challenges can and should be heard.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that local courts are entitled to hear claims related to federal air quality rules.
The lawsuit relates to the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2015 policy decision on air quality standards. The new rule was intended to decrease ozone pollution, which can form at the ground level and is associated with a heightened risk of respiratory problems and intellectual disabilities.
The Utah News Dispatch notes that ozone pollution is common in Utah, particularly during summer.
Under the EPA’s 2015 rule, states were directed to make compliance plans. One element of these plans concerns the Clean Air Act’s “good neighbor” provision, which concerns interstate pollution.
The agency ultimately rejected plans from 21 states, including Utah and Oklahoma.
Both states later filed lawsuits in a Colorado federal court.
The EPA quickly contested the states’ choice of venue, claiming that any legal action against a nationwide federal policy should be heard in a Washington, D.C.-based federal court.
Although the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the EPA’s arguments, Oklahoma and Utah appealed, asking the Supreme Court to clarify whether regional circuit courts can rule on federal pollution standards. In its Wednesday opinion, written by conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the case returned to Colorado.
“These two disapprovals are undisputedly locally or regionally applicable actions,” Thomas wrote. “A [state air quality compliance plan] is a state-specific plan, so an EPA disapproval on its face applies only to the State that proposed the [plan].”
Thomas also noted that “these cases are not ones where the ‘nationwide scope or effect’ exception applies. Accordingly, as with most locally or regionally applicably actions, petitioners’ challenges can be heard only in a regional Circuit.”
Utah Attorney General Derek Brown has since praised the court’s ruling, casting it as a significant victory for the state.
“The Court agreed with Utah’s argument involving the Clean Air Act that local courts should handle local issues, and the federal government should collaborate with the states—not ignore their unique differences,” Brown said. “We are also grateful to the Trump Administration’s EPA for reconsidering its ruling that required litigation in the first place, and look forward to our continued partnership on behalf of Utah.”
Join the conversation!