The decision overturns the lower court ruling.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rules determining how San Francisco manages raw sewage discharge are too vague, overturning a decision made by a lower court. The court heard arguments for this case in October 2024, where the city claimed that the EPA’s open-ended regulations could leave the city legally liable in future circumstances.
The majority agreed with the city, instructing the EPA to set specific limits for city sewage overflows rather than generic limits.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority, “This case involves provisions that do not spell out what a permittee must do or refrain from doing; rather, they make a permittee responsible for the quality of the water in the body of water into which the permittee discharges pollutants.“
“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,” Justice Alito continued. “If the EPA does what the [Clean Water Act] demands, water quality will not suffer.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a partial dissent, saying “[i]t is commonplace for ‘limitations’ to state that a particular end result must be achieved and that it is up to the [recipient] to figure out what it should do.’”
As the Lord Leads, Pray with Us…
- For discernment for the justices of the Supreme Court as they hear cases and release decisions.
- For the justices to seek God’s direction as they consider the constitutional authority of the Executive Branch and federal agencies.
Sources: The Hill, Red State, Reuters
