Written By: Mariclare Howard
Background
On Tuesday, March 4, the U.S. Supreme Court made a significant ruling in City and County of San Francisco, California v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that will impact how the government regulates pollution flowing into rivers, lakes, and oceans.
The case began in San Francisco, where the city operates wastewater treatment facilities that collect both wastewater and stormwater runoff. When there is heavy rainfall, the system can become overwhelmed, causing pollution to spill into the Pacific Ocean. Under the Clean Water Act, cities must obtain permits before discharging pollutants into rivers, lakes, or oceans. These permits set limits on how much pollution is allowed to be released into these bodies of water.
For many years, San Francisco’s permit was renewed without issue. However, in 2019, the EPA issued a renewal permit to San Francisco for its water runoff activities that added two end-result requirements. The city argued that the end-result requirements exceeded the EPA’s authority, as they did not provide enough detail on how to comply with water quality standards.
The EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board denied San Francisco’s administrative appeal, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied San Francisco’s petition for review. San Francisco then sought review from the Supreme Court.
The Court’s Decision
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of San Francisco. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, determined that the EPA had overstepped its authority by issuing a permit that lacked clear and specific guidelines. The Court emphasized that the EPA cannot simply issue broad, vague regulations but instead must provide specific, understandable rules on how much pollution is acceptable. The Court stressed that the vagueness of the permit could result in inconsistencies in enforcement, ultimately undermining the effectiveness of environmental protection.
Justice Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined. Barrett expressed concern that the majority’s ruling would severely limit the EPA’s ability to respond to environmental crises. Barrett argued that the Court’s decision places undue restrictions on the agency’s authority to enforce the Clean Water Act.
Barrett further argued that the Court’s decision could hinder the EPA’s ability to adapt to new and emerging pollution problems, where quick, broad action might be necessary before the agency can produce specific, measurable rules. Barrett highlighted the potential long-term consequences of narrowing the agency’s regulatory power, noting that such a decision may ultimately weaken the government’s ability to protect communities from pollution.
Legal Implications
The Court’s decision is important, as it alters the way the EPA will regulate pollution moving forward. The Court’s ruling requires the EPA to issue specific, detailed permits that clearly define the rules for pollution control. Critics of the EPA’s previous regulations argued that they were often vague, which created uncertainty for businesses and local governments. With this decision, cities and companies may have a clearer understanding of the specific guidelines they need to follow.
The decision also raises questions about the role of federal agencies in regulating the environment. Some may argue the ruling could make it more challenging for the EPA to take broad or immediate action to control pollution. Environmental advocates may express concern that the decision could hinder the EPA’s ability to respond quickly to emerging pollution issues, particularly in situations where creating specific guidelines is difficult. They may push for new laws or regulations that would allow the EPA to take broader actions when needed, even if those actions cannot be fully detailed in advance.
On the other hand, businesses and local governments may view this decision as a positive development, offering greater clarity and reducing uncertainty. With more specific guidelines, they may find it easier to understand their obligations and avoid non-compliance penalties, potentially leading to fewer legal disputes over pollution regulations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency marks a significant shift in how the EPA will regulate pollution. By limiting the agency’s ability to issue vague rules, the Court has required the EPA to be more specific in its approach to pollution control. This ruling will have important consequences for local governments, industries, and environmental protection efforts across the country. As the legal landscape evolves, it will be important to see how the EPA responds and how other agencies adjust their regulatory practices to comply with the Court’s ruling.
Sources:
City and Cnty. of San Francisco v. EPA, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 958 (2025).
City and Cnty. of San Francisco v. EPA, 75 F.4th 1074 (9th. Cir. 2023).
Bobby Magill, High Court Rejects EPA Sewage Permits in San Francisco Win, Bloomberg Law (Mar. 4, 2025, 4:40 PM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/supreme-court-rejects-vague-epa-permits-in-win-for-san-francisco.
Terry Forte, US Supreme Court rules for SF, against EPA, S.F. Exam’r (Mar. 5, 2025), https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/san-francisco-wins-case-against-epa-at-us-supreme-court/article_885e7f1c-f92e-11ef-9188-db2818c6230a.html.