Case Law Index: Clean Air Act
June 25, 1976 – April 4, 2025
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
Ohio v. EPA, 603 U.S. 279 (2024) (EPA’s FIP was “arbitrary” or “capricious” as it did not account for states that would drop out.) Text
Loper Bright Enters v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) (Overturns Chevron doctrine) Text
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
United States v. EZ Lynk SEVC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57283 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (EZ Lynk System is a defeat device within the meaning of Section 203 of the Clean Air Act.)
United States v. Upstate Shredding, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192927 (N.D.N.Y. 2023) (Showcases remedies for violating the CAA)
City of New York v. Chevron Corp., 993 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2021) (Clean Air Act regulates only domestic emissions) Text
THIRD CIRCUIT
Hartel v. Beazer E., Inc. Other Related Co. Including Beazer USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist LEXIS 60044 (W.D. Pa. 2025) (When removal of CAA-related claim are allowable)
Keystone-Conemaugh Projects LLC v. United States EPA, 100 F.4th 434 (3d. Cir. 2024) (EPA may formulate a FIP for a state if their SIP is vacated by a court)
Alpha Energy v. GEC, LLC Cont’l Cas. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist LEXIS 46057 (D.V.I. 2024) (Showcases when diesel generators are subjected to CAA requirements) Text
Chandler v. Pittaro, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (E.D. Pa. 2024) (There is no private right of action under the CAA) Text
Gaia Gardens, LLC v. Twp. of Montclair, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185495 (3d Cir. 2023) (How preemption works under CAA) Text
FOURTH CIRCUIT
West Virginia v. United States EPA, 90 F.4th 323 (4th Cir. 2024) (WV challenging the EPA’s denial of their SIP) Text
Butler v. New-Indy Catawba, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173610 (4th Cir. 2023) (Highlights process for citizen suits to enforce the CAA)
United States v. Rudy’s Performance Parts, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151928 (4th Cir. 2023) (Scope of what constitutes a “delete device”)
Graves v. Foulger-Pratt Cos., LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55732 (4th Cir. 2023) (Highlights process for citizen suits to enforce the CAA)
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
Johns v. Hedwig LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84551(S.D. Tex. 2024) (CAA does not provide a private right of action nor compensatory damages) Text
Sierra Club v. La. Dep’t of Env’t Quality, 100 F.4th 555 (5th Cir. 2024) (The LDEQ did not act arbitrarily in using EPA’s SILs) Text
Calumet Shreveport Refi n., LLC. v. United States EPA, 86 F.4th 1121 (5th Cir. 2023) (EPA’s denial of small refi neries’ petitions for RFS exemptions were impermissibly retroactive) Text
Texas v. United States EPA, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13898 (5th Cir. 2023) (CAA venue transfer & stay procedures)
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
United States v. Diesel Spec, Inc., 728 F. Supp. 3d 755 (N.D. Ohio 2024) (Delete device ban applies to foreign entities within the US but not those outside the US) Text
Fenner v. GM, LLC, 113 F.4th 585 (6th Cir. 2024) (How the CAA preemption and state tort law interact) Text
Kentucky v. United States EPA, 123 F.4th 447 (6th Cir. 2024) (EPA’s denial of Kentucky’s SIP was improper)
City of Fairborn v. United States EPA, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42299 (S.D. Ohio 2023) (Procedure for citizen suits under the CAA) Text
Harris v. Mackey, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191245 (N.D. Ohio 2023) (Prisoner alleging a CAA violation due to mold exposure) Text
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
SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Sierra Club v. Prairie State Generation Co., LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142409 (S.D. Ill. 2024) (Showcases procedure of FRCP 12(b)(6) v. a CAA claim)
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
Biederman v. FCA US LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25827 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (CAA preemption standards) Text
Calumet Mont Refi n., LLC v. Regan, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218695 (D. Mont. 2024) (EPA’s duties under the RFS waiver reviews) Text
United States v. Coiteux, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82510 (W.D. Wash. 2024) (Showcases CAA’s tempering provision) Text
Cent. Cal. Env’t Just. Network v. Randolph, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126557 (E.D. Cal. 2023) (Violation of SIP)
Cal. Trucking Ass’n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235286 (C.D. Cal. 2023) (Showcases CAA preemption)
Rothschild v. Pac. Cos., 2023 U.S. Dist., LEXIS 107442 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (Showcases CAA citizen suit procedure and requirements)
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 plants.) 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
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 4952 (10th Cir. 2025) (Approval of Colorado’s SIP was proper)
Wyoming v. United States EPA, 78 F. 4th 1171 (10th Cir. 2023) (EPA’s treatment of an SIP) Text
HEAL Utah v. United States EPA, 77 F. 4th 1275 (10th Cir. 2023) (EPA’s approval of Utah alternative measure instead of the best available retrofit technology (BART) to control for visibility-impairing emissions at power plants was proper) Text
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
Coal. for Renewable Nat. Gas v. EPA, 108 F. 4th 846 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (EPA’s modifications to RFS’s treatment of biogas-derived renewable fuel was proper)
Huntsman Petrochemical LLC v. EPA, 114 F. 4th 727 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (EPA did not erred in updating CAA to include a cancer-risk assessment) Text
United States Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 113 F. 4th 984 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (EPA new source designation framework) Text
California v. EPA, 72 F. 4th 308 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (EPA’s Aircraft Rule was with their CAA power) Text
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. §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 entitles challenged the revision of the Clean Air Act’s new source review (NSR) program for pre-construction 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 Act’s good neighbor policy, the EPA does not have to provide specifics metrics to States for emissions). Text
National Ass’n of Clean Air Agency 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
LOUISIANA
Rise St. James v. La. Dep’t of Env’t Quality, 383 So. 3d 956 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2024) (DEQ’s decision to grant 15 permits for proposed chemical manufacturing complexes did not violate the CAA)
MINNESOTA
In re Issuance of Air Emission Permit No. 13700345-101 for Polymet Mining, Inc., 2023 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 995 (2023) (Granting the application for a synthetic-minor-source air-emissions permit under the Clean Air Act was proper because the agency’s unchallenged fi ndings showed that it devoted two years to carefully examining the application and input from the public and Environmental Protection Agency.)
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
MONTANA
Mont. Env’t Info. Ctr. v. Mont Dep’t of Env’t Quality, 420 Mont. 150 (Mont. 2025) (DEQ was required to analyze GHG emissions as part of its air quality permitting process under MEPA.)
NEW MEXICO
Indep. Petro. Ass’n v. State Env’t Improvement Bd., 2024 N.M. App. Unpub. LEXIS 396 (2024) (Showcases how State’s SIP function)
WildEarth Guardians v. N.M. Env’t Improvement Bd., 2024-NMCA-021 (2023) (Showcases how state law CAA registration rules interact with the CAA)