Case Law Index: Clean Air Act

June 25, 1976 – May 26, 2015

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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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