Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Peter Williams v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 22-1314 · judgment July 7, 2023


Certiorari denied · May 28, 2024
Pre-decision estimate: 6% cert probability (95% interval 4%–11%)

Before the decision, about 1.6× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a D.C. Circuit decision below, counsel with five or more prior petitions here, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition).

Questions presented

Petitioner Williams applied to enter a new Clean Air Act (the “Act”) program distributing allocations annually. Although his application applied expressly as an individual with the dba New Era Group, the logo to his letterhead shows “New Era Group, Inc.” and his email address was at neweragroupinc.com. Notwithstanding express statements in his application’s body that he applied as an individual, EPA denied his application as an ineligible corporation in a letter that EPA loosely summarized in a Federal Register notice on April 5, 2022, announcing approvals for the new program beginning October 1, 2022. Through counsel, by letter on April 20, 2022, he sought reconsideration, including new evidence of the individual nature of his application. Contrary to 5 U.S.C. § 555, EPA has yet to act on—or even formally respond to—Williams’ administrative petition for reconsideration. Two more petitions were filed to correct EPA’s error, without a response. Williams timely petitioned for review when EPA issued new annual allocations for the next year without resolving his pending administrative petition. Petitions for review must be filed within 60 days of EPA’s publishing actions in the Federal Register, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). In § 7607(d), the Act exempts most major EPA action from 5 U.S.C. §§ 553-557 and 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), but not the program here, to which the APA still applies. The questions presented are:

  1. Whether Williams could have petitioned for review using non-record rebuttal evidence within 60 days of EPA’s initial action.

  2. Whether the Act required Williams to petition for review within 60 days of EPA’s initial action.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Lawrence J. Joseph
Law Office of Lawrence J. Joseph

For respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Solicitor General

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Linked docket
23A631

Proceedings

  1. Jul 22 2024
    Rehearing DENIED.
  2. Jul 17 2024
    Supplemental brief to petition for rehearing filed. (Distributed)
  3. Jun 27 2024
    DISTRIBUTED.
  4. Jun 24 2024
  5. May 28 2024
    Petition DENIED.
  6. May 07 2024
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2024.
  7. Apr 10 2024
    Waiver of right of respondent Environmental Protection Agency to respond filed.
  8. Mar 25 2024
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 26, 2024)
  9. Jan 11 2024
    Application (23A631) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until March 24, 2024.
  10. Jan 05 2024
    Application (23A631) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 24, 2024 to March 24, 2024, submitted to The Chief Justice.