The first dispute concerns a challenge brought by companies and Oklahoma seeking to determine whether challenges to so-called “good neighbor” ozone plans can be decided in a forum other than the U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit, which has a history of following policies under the Biden administration and has many Democratic judges.

In March, the Colorado-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals told Oklahoma, PacifiCorp and other challengers that their lawsuits against the EPA’s traveling ozone plan belonged to the D.C. Circuit, not a more regional appeals court where challengers might have an advantage in getting the rule stayed.

This case comes as a growing number of states and industry groups have sought relief in regulatory disputes at sites outside the D.C. Circuit, hoping to find a more favorable venue for their claims.

For example, the Louisiana-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, considered one of the most conservative and skeptical of regulatory overreach, ruled on March 22 to make it much harder to prevent of a Texas-based plastics company to use fluoridation to strengthen plastic packaging, which the agency says helps produce “forever chemicals” and harms the environment.

The judges will hear Oklahoma And PacifiCorp v. EPA at a consolidated plea hearing later this term.

The other dispute granted by the judges on Monday, EPA v. Calumet Shreveport RefiningLLC, surrounds the agency’s refusal to grant biofuel waivers for small refineries that have requested to be exempt from Renewable Fuel Standard program responsibilities under the Clean Air Act.

Calumet poses a similar question to the justices: whether challenges by small oil refineries seeking such exemptions belong exclusively to the Washington appeals court because they are national in scope, or whether other federal appeals courts can decide this type of dispute.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has taken a more skeptical look at the administrative and regulatory state, with moves such as a 6-3 ruling against the EPA in 2022 on the extent to which it can regulate emissions of carbon dioxide on the basis of climate change prevention. .

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

In the last legislature, the justices ruled 5-4 to suspend the EPA’s Good Neighbor Rule, which was intended to strictly limit ozone pollution from power plants and other industrial sources in 23 states, as well as air pollutants that can drift downwind to other states and cause damage. additional harm.

Monday’s list of Supreme Court orders indicated that Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in considering motions related to the ozone “good neighbor” rule.