Case Law Index: Clean Air Act

June 25, 1976 – February 16, 2023

This index provides a comprehensive though not necessarily exhaustive compilation of reported and unreported federal and state court decisions involving the Clean Air Act that were decided between the dates listed above.  The cases are listed in reverse chronological order. The “Text” link goes to the freely available Google Scholar text of the opinion.  These listings are for educational purposes only and are not a substitute for legal counsel.

SUPREME COURT

West Virginia v. Env’t Prot. Agency, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) (Concerning the EPA and the possibility of reviving the Clean Power Plan.) Text

HollyFrontier Cheyenne Ref., LLC v. Renewable Fuels Ass’n, — S.Ct. – (2021) (Small refineries may seek exemption from Clean Air Act renewable fuel program) Text

E.P.A. v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.Ct. 1584 (2014) (EPA’s right to set state guidelines). Text

Util. Air Regulatory Grp. V. E.P.A., 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014) (EPA’s authority to regulate stationary sources under CAA). Text

Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (Upholding that gases that cause global warming are considered pollutants under the Clean Air Act). Text

Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation, 549 U.S. 561 (2007) (industrial smokestacks and power plants must meet today’s cost-effective pollution control standards when facilities are updated. Text

Alaska Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation v. E.P.A., 540 U.S. 461 (2004) (Stop orders under CAA). Text

Whitman v. Am. Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457 (2001) (Considerations for setting NAAQS).Union Elec. Co. v. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246 (1976) (EPA approval of SIPs). Text

Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 US 837 (1984) (Allocation of deference given to agency decisions). Text

Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680 (1983) (allows for the allocation of attorney’s fees under the Clean Air Act.) Text

Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976) (states have 30 days to change or update their SIPs if new information is discovered after implementation). Text

SECOND CIRCUIT

City of New York v. Chevron Corp., 993 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2021) (Clean Air Act regulates only domestic emissions) Text

FOURTH CIRCUIT

Ergo-W. Virginia, Inc. v. United States Env’t Prot. Agency, 980 F.3d 403 (4th Cir. 2020) (EPA decision to deny small oil refinery exemption from renewable fuel requirement was arbitrary and capricious) Text

FIFTH CIRCUIT

State v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 983 F.3d 826 (5th Cir. 2020) (EPA not required to consider modeling data when designating one county as nonattainment zone) Text

Texas v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 829 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2016) (Plaintiffs entitled to stay of final EPA rule controlling regional haze.) Text

SIXTH CIRCUIT

Merrick v. Diago Americas Supply, Inc., 805 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2015) (CAA did not preempt property owner’s state common law claims) Text

EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Voight v. Coyote Creek Mining Company, LLC, No. 18-2705 (8th Cir. June 1, 2021) (Clean Air Act regulations did not cover coal pile) Text

POET Biorefining – Hudson, LLC v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 971 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2020) (Controversy regarding alleged denial of Renewable Fuel Standards application was moot) Text

NINTH CIRCUIT

350 Montana v. Haaland, 50 F.4th 1254 (9th Cir. 2022) (The Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement violated NEPA by failing to provide evidence as to explain why the impacts of a project to expand a coal mine were insufficient.) Text

In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, 959 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2020) (CAA did not preempt local county rules) Text

In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, 264 F.Supp.3d 1040 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2017) (State claims were barred by the CAA.)

Helping Hands Tools v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 848 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2016) (EPA did not abuse discretion in not considering certain technologies for biomass-burning plant.) Text

Bahr v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 836 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2016) (EPA’s approval of SIP was contrary to CAA) Text

Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. U.S. E.P.A., 790 F.3d 934 (9th Cir., 2015) (EPA’s retroactive amendment of new source review rules was not arbitrary and capricious) Text

Sierra Club v. E.P.A., 671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2012) (EPA’s approval of SIP without consideration of available updated emission data was arbitrary and capricious). Text

Jensen Family Farms, Inc. v. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control Dist., 644 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2011) (Upholding that local district regulatory scheme requiring owners and operators of diesel-powered engines used in agriculture to pay fees was not preempted by the CAA). Text

Latino Issues Forum v. E.P.A., 558 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2009) (Discussing best available control measures for non-attainable regions under the CAA). Text

Safe Air for Everyone v. E.P.A., 488 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2007) (Discussing SIP plans and federal law as it relates to agricultural burning). Text

Idaho Conservation League v. Boer, 362 F.Supp.2d 1211 (D.Id. 2004) (Holding that dairy was a stationary source and by-products are regulated air pollutants under the CAA). Text

Vigil v. Leavitt, 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004) (Discussing Arizona’s rule regulating agricultural emissions of particulate matter). Text

California Farm Bureau Fed’n v. E.P.A., 72 Fed. Appx. 540 (9th Cir. 2003) (Upholding EPA’s decision to revoke approval of permit plans under the CAA that exempted major agricultural sources from complying).

Ober v. Whitman, 243 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2001) (Permitting the EPA to exempt de minimis emission sources from the CAA). Text

TENTH CIRCUIT

Utah Physicians for a Healthy Env’t v. Diesel Power Gear, LLC, 21 F.4th 1229 (10th Cir. 2021) (Concerning tampering with emission control devices and installing “defeat devices” in violation of the Clean Air Act and Utah’s State Implementation Plan). Text

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Sierra Club v. Atlanta Reg’l Comm’n, 255 F.Supp.2d 1319 (N.D.Ga. 2002) (Discussing standing to bring suit for enforcement under the CAA and review of procedures for complying with the CAA under SIP). Text

D.C. CIRCUIT

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 45 F.4th 380 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (Concerning the Clean Air Act’s venue provision in relation to the decommission of oil platforms off the coast of California) Text

SIERRA CLUB v. Envtl. Prot. Agency and BCCA Appeal Group, 47 F.4th 738 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (Concerning the Clean Air Act’s venue provision in relation to the EPA’s final decision on lifting certain national ambient air quality standards in the Houston and Dallas areas.) Text

Truck Trailer Mfrs. Ass’n v. Envt. Prot. Agency, 17 F.4th 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (EPA regulation for trailers pulled by tractors based on 49 U.S.C.S. § 7521) Text

Am. Fuel & Petrochemical Mfrs. v. EPA, 3 F.4th 373 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (Concerning a waiver under 42 U.S.C.S. §7545(h)(4) for fuel blends containing ethanol sold during the summer months and how it interacts with the EPA’s authority under §7545(h)(4).) Text

Growth Energy v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 19-1023 (D.C. Cir. July 16, 2021) (Concerning implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standards program) Text

State of New Jersey v. Envt. Prot. Agency, 989 F.3d 1038 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (States, environmental organizations, and industrial entites challenged the revision of the Clean Air Act’s new source review (NSR) program for preconstruction permitting of stationary sources of air pollution) Text

Am. Lung Ass’n v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 985 F.3d 914 (D.C. 2021) (Affordable Clean Energy rule misinterpreted the CAA.) Text

POET Biorefining, LLC v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 970 F.3d 392 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (EPA guidance aided peer review under Renewable Fuel Standard program) Text

Am. Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 937 F.3d 559 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (EPA could take cost considerations into account in deciding to exercise its full cellulosic waiver authority) Text

Nat’l Biodiesel Bd. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 843 F.3d 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (EPA approval of biofuel producer’s compliance plan for the RFS program was not a rulemaking) Text

Westar Energy, Inc. v. EPA, 608 Fed. Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015). (Under Clean Air Acts good neighbor policy, the EPA does not have to provide specifics metrics to States for emissions). Text

National Ass’n of Clean Air Agenices v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1221 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (petition denied for court to hear case concerning EPA interpretation of its own regulation). Text

Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. E.P.A., 88 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 1996). (Discussing state regulations of large non-road engines). Text

Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F. 2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (EPA has the right under the CAA to regulate lead emissions levels.) Text

COLORADO

Defend Colorado v. Polis, 2021 COA 8, 482 P.3d 531 (Air Quality Commission not required under Clean Air Act to oversee reporting of data to EPA) Text

IOWA

Freeman v. Grain Processing Corp., 848 N.W.2d 58 (Iowa 2014) (Dealing with the interplay of the CAA and state preemption laws in the context of emissions from wet corn milling facility). Text

INDIANA

United States v. Cinergy Court, 582 F. Supp. 2d 105 (S.D. In., 2008). (Upholds courts jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act on equity jurisdiction). Text

MISSOURI

Friends of Agric. For Reform of Missouri Envtl. Regulations v. Zimmerman, 51 S.W.3d 64 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001) (State had authority to regulate odor emissions from feed lots under the CAA). Text