Supreme Court Schedules Hearings for Biden-Era Environmental Cases It Declined to Freeze

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Feb. 10, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Feb. 10 that it will hear two environmental regulation cases next month after it rejected a Department of Justice (DOJ) request last week to halt them.

The announcement that oral arguments in the two cases—Oklahoma v. EPA and EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining—will take place on March 25 was published on the court’s website.

The court declined on Feb. 6 to grant a DOJ request to halt three environmental regulation cases.

The DOJ had asked the court on Jan. 24 to put the Biden-era cases on hold because the department was considering changing its position on the cases following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20.

Position changes in high-profile court cases often take place when a new party assumes the presidency. After President Joe Biden was inaugurated in January 2021, the DOJ similarly changed its position on several court cases that were pending at the time.

Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, who is currently the Trump administration’s top lawyer at the Supreme Court, said in filings on Jan. 24 that the DOJ needs time to reevaluate the cases because a new president is in charge.

Harris had asked the court to halt all written briefing deadlines in the cases, which would suspend the processing of those cases indefinitely. After the court agrees to hear oral arguments in a case, it typically asks the litigants to file briefs outlining the arguments they intend to make.

In legal parlance, Harris filed motions to hold the briefing schedule in the cases in abeyance. In other words, she asked the court to suspend briefings until the Trump administration could decide how to proceed.

Oklahoma v. EPA and EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining both concern the federal Clean Air Act, which provides that challenges to “nationally applicable regulations” may “be filed only” in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In Oklahoma v. EPA, Oklahoma and other states are arguing that state disputes over Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policies should be heard in regional circuit courts rather than the circuit court in the nation’s capital. The Supreme Court granted the petition on Oct. 21, 2024.

At issue is the EPA’s “good neighbor” rule, which targets states whose industries are said to be contributing to smog.

The Clean Air Act requires each state to adopt an implementation plan to comply with national standards, which the EPA then reviews. In 2023, the agency drafted its own rule after rejecting 23 states’ plans for meeting national ozone standards.

In February 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit determined that challenges to EPA disapproval of the state plans could be filed only in the D.C. Circuit.

The Supreme Court voted 5–4 on June 27, 2024, to temporarily stay the EPA’s rule. The court held that the emissions-reduction standards in the agency’s plan would probably cause irreversible harm to several of the affected states unless the plan was stayed until it could be reviewed by the lower courts.

The states said the regulation was illegal and costly, could lead to blackouts, and undermined the principles of the Clean Air Act, while the EPA said the rule was urgently needed to fight air pollution.

In EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, oil refineries are arguing they should be exempted from a federal mandate that the gasoline they produce must contain a specified percentage of ethanol. The Supreme Court approved the petition on Oct. 21, 2024.

The EPA argued the case should be heard by the D.C. Circuit, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found in November 2023 that it—and not the D.C. Circuit—was the proper venue for that appeal.

The Epoch Times reached out for comment to the DOJ, which represents the EPA; Calumet Shreveport Refining’s attorney, Michael Huston of Perkins Coie in Phoenix, Arizona; and Oklahoma’s attorney, Mithun Mansinghani of Lehotsky Keller Cohn in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

No replies were received by publication time.

The justices have not yet scheduled oral argument in the third EPA case that the court declined to halt after the DOJ asked for a pause.

The Supreme Court agreed on Dec. 13, 2024, to hear Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA. The court will consider reviving a lawsuit that energy companies filed over California’s tough vehicle emissions standards.

A lower court ruled California had the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions. That court held that the energy companies bringing the legal action could not demonstrate they had legal standing to sue, meaning they couldn’t show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify their participation in the lawsuit.

Energy companies told the Supreme Court in their petition that they will suffer economic harm if California, with its large economy, is allowed to continue imposing vehicle emissions standards that are more stringent than those mandated by the federal government.

California’s policy stances are influential, and several states have already adopted its regulatory framework for automobiles. California says its climate-related policies are needed to drive down demand for liquid fuel.

It is unclear when the justices will schedule a hearing in the case.

The Supreme Court’s calendar indicates no arguments have yet been scheduled for the period from April 21 to 30, which is the last period set aside for arguments that remain in the court’s current term that began in October 2024.