The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of San Francisco against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), impacting the agency’s power to regulate offshore pollution. This case united San Francisco with mining and petroleum groups against the EPA’s water quality standards, particularly regarding human waste disposal. Justice Alito emphasized that while the EPA can enforce specific pollution prevention requirements, it cannot penalize permittees solely based on general water quality failures. Justice Barrett dissented, advocating for broader regulatory authority to adapt to changing water quality issues. San Francisco sought clarity on compliance with the Clean Water Act, arguing existing regulations were unclear.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of San Francisco regarding a challenge to water quality regulations set by the Environmental Protection Agency, a decision that may significantly affect the agency’s capacity to manage offshore pollution.
The 5-to-4 ruling represented another setback for the EPA, which has faced multiple defeats in court recently concerning its environmental protection efforts.
This case was particularly noteworthy due to the unusual alliances formed. San Francisco aligned with mining and petroleum trade organizations such as the National Mining Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers in opposition to the EPA.
At the heart of the dispute was the matter of human waste and its disposal in San Francisco. The critical issue for the court was whether the Clean Water Act of 1972 permitted the EPA to enforce restrictions on wastewater discharged into the Pacific Ocean and impose penalties on the city for any violations.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., representing the majority opinion, stated that while the EPA could impose specific pollution prevention requirements, it could not hold polluters accountable solely for general declines in water quality under its standards.
“When a permit includes such specifications,” he noted, “a permittee diligently adhering to every explicit condition may still confront severe penalties if the water quality in the affected waters dips below established standards.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred with the majority opinion, while Justice Neil M. Gorsuch aligned with most of it.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, joined by the court’s three-member liberal contingent — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Justice Barrett contended that the agency had the authority to augment specific water discharge requirements with broader standards in response to fluctuating water quality. She cited, referencing the government’s lawsuit, that “this need for additional regulations is evident in this case — discharges from parts of San Francisco’s sewer system have allegedly resulted in significant violations of water quality standards, including ‘discoloration, scum, and floating debris, such as toilet paper, in Mission Creek.’”
Justice Barrett further stated that polluters have the option to mount specific challenges to regulations they consider unfair. However, she maintained that “a statutory rewrite” was unnecessary.
In advance of the October oral arguments, San Francisco officials rejected the idea that they were contesting the federal government’s regulatory powers regarding the environment. They expressed their desire for clarity on the city’s wastewater permit rules to guarantee compliance with the Clean Water Act.
The legal representative for San Francisco contended that officials lacked precise guidance on adhering to the Clean Water Act and were subjected to “severe criminal and civil penalties even while complying with their 300-page permit.”