In EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refin., L.L.C., the Supreme Court ruled that all challenges to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denials of small refinery exemption (SRE) petitions under the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program must be brought exclusively in the D.C. Circuit. Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas—joined by seven other Justices—held that while the denials may affect individual refineries, they rest on determinations with “nationwide scope or effect,” triggering D.C. Circuit jurisdiction under the Act.
As discussed in Dykema’s April 2025 issue, this case arose from the EPA’s denial of more than 100 SRE petitions. Those exemptions allow small refineries to avoid blending renewable fuels or purchasing Renewable Identification Number (RIN) credits if compliance would cause “disproportionate economic hardship.”
Background of the Circuit Split
The Fifth Circuit had previously held that affected refineries could challenge these denials in their home circuits, reasoning that the denials were only regionally applicable. Under the Clean Air Act, regionally applicable EPA actions are heard in regional circuits, while nationally applicable ones—including those “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect”—must be heard in the D.C. Circuit.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court agreed that the EPA’s denial of each exemption petition was a regionally applicable action because each decision applied to an individual refinery. However, the Court held that the EPA’s rationale for denying all petitions—the statutory interpretation and uniform “RIN passthrough” theory—constituted a determination of nationwide scope and effect.
Key Holding: When the EPA uses a single, uniform rationale to decide SRE petitions nationwide, that determination triggers D.C. Circuit exclusive jurisdiction, even if the underlying actions are regionally applicable. The Court clarified that a “determination” refers to the agency’s legal and factual justifications of:
- Nationwide scope if they apply throughout the country as a matter of law, or
- Nationwide effect if they result in uniform practical consequences.
Here, although only one is required, the EPA’s use of consistent legal reasoning and economic assumptions across all denials satisfied both standards.
Takeaways
- Jurisdictional Uniformity: Challenges to SRE denials must now be filed in the D.C. Circuit, promoting greater consistency and predictability inRFS litigation outcomes.
- Strategic Implications for EPA Rulemaking: The agency must now weigh the legal and practical breadth of its justifications, not just the geographic reach of its actions, when assessing judicial review paths.
- CAA Litigation Outlook: This ruling may encourage the EPA to tailor its reasoning to avoid triggering D.C. Circuit exclusive jurisdiction—or embrace it, depending on the agency’s litigation or policy strategy.
For more information, please contac Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Kyle Asher, or Monika Harris. A special thanks to Summer Associate Ana Avendano Martinez for assisting with this post.