The Supreme Court sided with San Francisco on Tuesday in its challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
A majority on the court held that the EPA exceeded its authority by issuing San Francisco a permit that did not clearly explain the limits on how much sewage it could discharge into the ocean but included a vague “end-result” provision that made the city responsible for the water quality.
Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion of the court in a 5-4 ruling. Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented along with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson.
“When a permit contains such requirements, a permittee that punctiliously follows every specific requirement in its permit may nevertheless face crushing penalties if the quality of the water in its receiving waters falls below the applicable standards,” Alito wrote.
The high court held that such “end-result” requirements are not allowed under federal law. Alito’s opinion also stated “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.”
Barrett authored the court’s dissenting opinion, arguing that taking this tool from the EPA “may make it harder for the Agency to issue the permits that municipalities and businesses need in order for their discharges to be lawful.”
“If the Agency must impose individualized conditions for each permittee under §1311(b)(1)(C), then it will be more difficult and more time consuming for the Agency to issue permits,” she wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
San Francisco asked the Supreme Court to step in last year, arguing that the EPA’s vague restrictions expose the city “and numerous permit holders nationwide to enforcement actions,” including penalties reaching billions of dollars.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled against San Francisco in July 2023.
