The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority under the Clean Water Act by imposing unclear water quality standards on San Francisco and siding with the city in its appeal of a lower court ruling.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the 5-4 majority decision, saying the Clean Water Act does not permit the EPA to hold a permit holder responsible for the overall water quality of a receiving body, in this case, the Pacific Ocean, without specifying the exact steps required for compliance.
“Determining what steps a permittee must take to ensure that water quality standards are met is the EPA’s responsibility, and Congress has given it the tools needed to make that determination,” Alito wrote in City and County of San Francisco v. EPA. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch.
The ruling strikes down EPA-imposed provisions that required San Francisco’s wastewater treatment facilities to avoid contributing to any violation of applicable water quality standards or creating pollution under California law. The city argued these vague mandates could lead to harsh penalties without clear guidance on how to comply.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, authored the dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Barrett argued that the Clean Water Act explicitly gives the EPA broad authority to impose “any more stringent limitation” necessary to ensure compliance with water quality standards. She warned the ruling could weaken environmental protections.
The so-called “end-result” matters center on the EPA holding San Francisco responsible for overall water quality without specifying how to do so. Under the Clean Water Act, permits limit pollutant discharges, but the EPA created additional vague rules, making the city liable if ocean water failed quality standards regardless of whether it followed all permit terms.
The Supreme Court ruled this exceeded EPA authority, reaffirming that the agency must set clear rules for permit holders rather than imposing broad mandates.
In response to the ruling, some business groups praised the decision as the right move. The National Federation of Independent Business, which filed an amicus brief with major industry associations, said the ruling ensures clear and fair water quality standards.
“Today’s ruling is good news for small business owners who rely on clear and consistent water quality standards,” said Beth Milito, executive director of NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center.
Meanwhile, environmental experts warned about the possible drawbacks. Attorney Brian Bell said the decision weakens federal regulatory power beyond water permits. He said it could “limit how not just the EPA, but [how] any federal agency can regulate the public,” noting its potential implications for air pollution rules.
Bell also highlighted the case’s significance as the first major environmental ruling since the court ended the Chevron deference. He pointed to the majority’s policy-driven reasoning and Barrett’s surprising alignment with the liberal justices in dissent.
JUSTICE CRITICAL OF SAN FRANCISCO LAWSUIT AGAINST EPA
The decision marks the first major Clean Water Act case since the 2023 Sackett v. EPA case, in which the justices narrowed the definition of federally protected wetlands and continued a trend of limiting agency power over environmental regulation.
The ruling on Tuesday is likely to constrain future EPA enforcement efforts, particularly in regulating municipal wastewater and stormwater discharges.
