Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Oklahoma, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, No. 23-9514 · judgment February 27, 2024
Before the decision, about 10.3× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a petition filed soon after the judgment below, counsel who has won certiorari before, and a circuit split argued in the petition.
Question presented
Consolidated with 23-1068. Under the Clean Air Act, each state must adopt an implementation plan to meet national standards, which EPA then reviews for compliance with the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410. In 2023, EPA published disapprovals of 21 states' plans implementing national ozone standards. It did so in a single Federal Register notice. The Act specifies that "[a] petition for review of the [EPA's] action in approving or promulgating any implementation plan ... or any other final action of the [EPA] under this Act ... which is locally or regionally applicable may be filed only in" the appropriate regional circuit, while "nationally applicable regulations ... may be filed only in" the D.C. Circuit. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). Parties from a dozen states sought judicial review of their respective state plan disapprovals in their appropriate regional circuits. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits held that the implementation plan disapprovals of states within those circuits are appropriately challenged in their respective regional courts of appeals. In the decision below, the Tenth Circuit held that challenges to the disapprovals of Oklahoma's and Utah's plans can only be brought in the D.C. Circuit, explicitly disagreeing with the decisions of its sister circuits. The question presented is: Whether a final action by EPA taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the D.C. Circuit because EPA published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Mithun Mansinghani
Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP
For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 4 conferences
Amicus briefs
2 cert-stage · 5 merits
(3 supporting pet./neither, 2 respondent)
Related
Vide, 23-1068
Argument & decision
Argued March 25, 2025 — Mithun Mansinghani · Misha Tseytlin · Malcolm L. Stewart. Audio and transcript
Decided June 18, 2025. Opinion by Thomas.
Proceedings
- Jul 21 2025Judgment Issued.
- Jun 18 2025Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Roberts, C. J., joined. Alito, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. VIDED.
- Mar 28 2025Letter from petitioners in 23-1067 notifying Court of March 25, 2025 decision of the 5th Circuit in cited case, 23-60069, Texas v. EPA, filed (opinion attached).
- Mar 25 2025Argued. For petitioners in 23-1067: Mithun Mansinghani, Oklahoma City, Okla. For petitioners in 23-1068: Misha Tseytlin, Chicago, Ill. For respondents: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
- Feb 24 2025Motion for divided argument filed by petitioners GRANTED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion. VIDED.
- Feb 19 2025CIRCULATED
- Feb 18 2025Reply of petitioners Oklahoma, et al. filed (as to 23-1067). (Distributed)
- Feb 18 2025Reply of petitioners PacifiCorp, et al. filed (as to 23-1068). (Distributed)
- Feb 12 2025Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- Feb 12 2025Record received electronically from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and available with the Clerk.
- Feb 10 2025SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, March 25, 2025. VIDED.
- Feb 06 2025Motion of the Acting Solicitor General to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion. VIDED.
- Jan 28 2025Response in opposition to motion to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance from petitioners PacifiCorp, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Jan 27 2025Response in opposition to motion to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance from petitioners Oklahoma, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Jan 24 2025Motion to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance filed by respondents EPA, et al. VIDED. (Distributed)
- Jan 24 2025Brief amici curiae of New York, et al. filed. VIDED.
- Jan 24 2025Brief amici curiae of Jonathan Cannon, et al. filed. VIDED.
- Jan 24 2025Motion for divided argument filed by petitioners. VIDED.
- Jan 17 2025Brief of respondents EPA, et al. filed. VIDED.
- Dec 20 2024Brief amici curiae of U.S. Senator Mike Lee, et al. (as to 23-1067) filed.
- Dec 20 2024Brief amici curiae of Arkansas, et al. filed. VIDED.
- Dec 20 2024Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
- Dec 13 2024Brief of petitioners Oklahoma, et al. (as to 23-1067) filed.
- Dec 13 2024Brief of petitioners PacifiCorp, et al. (as to 23-1068) filed.
- Dec 13 2024Joint appendix filed. VIDED. (Statement of costs filed)
- Oct 31 2024Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' briefs on the merits is extended to and including December 13, 2024. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including January 17, 2025. VIDED.
- Oct 28 2024Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed. VIDED.
- Oct 21 2024Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 23-1068 is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions. VIDED.
- Oct 21 2024Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 23-1067. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 23-1067. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”
- Oct 15 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2024.
- Oct 07 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2024.
- Sep 11 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
- May 30 2024Reply of petitioners Oklahoma, et al. filed.
- May 29 2024Rescheduled.
- May 28 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2024.
- May 22 2024Waiver of the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition pursuant to Rule 15.5 filed by petitioner.
- May 21 2024Brief for the Federal Respondents filed. VIDED.
- May 01 2024Brief amici curiae of Arkansas, et al. filed.
- May 01 2024Brief amici curiae of U.S. Senators Mike Lee, et al. filed.
- Apr 24 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 21, 2024.
- Apr 23 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 1, 2024 to May 21, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
- Mar 28 2024Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 1, 2024)