The Supreme Court agreed to hear three cases Monday from industry groups seeking to choose how to fight federal environmental regulations, underscoring a long-running battle over efforts to choose conservative or liberal courts that the parties believe are more favorable to their cause.

Next year’s Supreme Court rulings could have huge consequences for the ability of states and others to challenge Environmental Protection Agency rules. The court’s conservative majority has repeatedly ruled against the agency in recent times, including blocking implementation of a major effort to reduce smog and air pollution earlier this year.

States and other plaintiffs frequently file complaints in courts that they believe are more likely to rule in their favor, a practice known as “forum shopping.” This has become particularly pronounced in recent years in Texas, where conservatives often file lawsuits challenging Biden administration policies because it opens up the possibility of appealing to the conservative 5th Circuit.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court overturned a decision by the Louisiana-based 5th Circuit that would have severely limited access to the abortion drug mifepristone.
An 8-1 majority also overturned a 5th Circuit gun ruling that struck down a federal law barring certain domestic abusers from having access to a firearm.

Federal law generally dictates where challenges can be filed under the Clean Air Act, but the environmental cases the Supreme Court decided Monday could nonetheless draw attention to questions about the political balance of the nation’s appeals courts .

The Clean Air Act requires challenges to EPA’s “nationally applicable” decisions to be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, arguably the second most powerful court in the country and who often enforces these environmental regulations. Congress included this mandate to ensure national consistency in how the agency’s environmental rules are reviewed by federal courts.

The D.C. Court of Appeals, because of its location and jurisdiction, also often hears some of the highest-profile cases involving the federal government. Four of the current nine judges previously served on the D.C. Circuit: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Attorney General Merrick Garland also served on the appeals court when he was appointed to the high court in 2016.

The Supreme Court will likely hear the arguments early next year.

Environmental groups have warned that the decisions, if made on the side of industry groups, could ultimately weaken the agency’s regulations.

“Congress has clearly expressed its preference for sending Clean Air Act cases of national significance to the Washington, D.C. circuit, but polluters would prefer to challenge them in the court of their choice,” said Ian Fein, senior counsel. to the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Again, they are trying to weaken the protections we all rely on for clean air and healthy lungs. »

In 2022, the EPA denied waivers to more than 100 small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the Clean Air Act’s requirement to blend ethanol with gasoline. The refineries argued that these decisions applied to them individually and did not involve a “national” issue. They therefore challenged the regulations of the 5th Circuit based in Louisiana, which sided with them.

The Biden administration appealed the decision to the Supreme Court in May.

The agency argued that allowing different states and industry groups to file lawsuits in different courts across the country would lead to “duplicative litigation and inconsistent rulings” that would impose “substantial obstacles” to enforcement. environmental regulations.

Two other cases the Supreme Court agreed to hear Monday concern the Biden administration’s ozone regulations that aim to prevent pollution from crossing state lines. Oklahoma and Utah, along with several power companies, tried to challenge Biden’s rules in a federal appeals court in Denver.

The EPA argued that the regulations were also “nationally applicable” and should be addressed by the federal appeals court in Washington. The 10th Circuit, where Democratic presidents have appointed more active judges than Republicans, agreed with the government and sent the case to the D.C. Circuit for review.

For more CNN news and newsletters, create an account at CNN.com