October Term 2024 · Docket 23-1229

Where must a refinery sue to challenge an EPA economic hardship denial?

The dispute centers on whether a refinery must file its challenge in Washington, D.C., or in a local court.

Official caption
EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Stewart argued the case shows the venue provision aims to avoid specific results.

    Waxman stated the core objective is avoiding inconsistent rules from duplicative litigation.

    Huston argued the court must look to the chapter text to determine applicability.

    Gorsuch questioned the statutory interpretation and economic theory behind the hardship determination.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The EPA argues the case belongs in D.C. to prevent conflicting rules. The refinery argues the case belongs locally because the denial targets its specific economic harm.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 25, 2025.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The EPA wants the case to stay in D.C. to ensure uniform national rules.

The refinery wants the case to remain in its local court to challenge its specific denial.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The EPA argues Section 307(b) requires D.C. venue to avoid inconsistent rules from duplicative litigation.

The refinery argues the statute requires a local venue because the denial targets its specific economic harm.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Gorsuch asked how far back a party must trace the reasoning to determine the correct venue.

Justice Thomas asked if there are limits to aggregating different claims to determine D.C. venue.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines where companies must sue to challenge specific EPA economic decisions. It determines whether local courts or D.C. courts handle these disputes. The outcome shapes the balance between national consistency and local judicial review.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON