Environmental Protection Agency v. Defenders of Wildlife

Background

The dispute is between the Environmental Protection Agency, which moved to transfer water-pollution permitting authority to the State of Arizona, and environmental groups that challenged that move. A federal appeals court held the EPA’s transfer was arbitrary and capricious because the agency relied on inconsistent interpretations of the Endangered Species Act’s consultation requirement. The Supreme Court granted review, consolidated the cases, allotted one hour for argument, and asked the parties to brief a specific question about the appeals court’s decision and the proper handling of the case.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the appeals court correctly found the EPA’s decision arbitrary because of inconsistent views about Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act and whether the appeals court should have sent the matter back to the EPA without resolving that statutory interpretation. The Supreme Court has not yet decided the merits. Instead, it directed the parties to address those two questions in their briefs and oral argument so the Justices can decide whether the lower court was right and what the next step should be.

Real world impact

This review could determine whether Arizona receives federal Clean Water Act permitting authority and could shape how agencies must handle endangered-species consultations when transferring program authority. Because the Court only granted review and asked for briefing, there is no final outcome yet; the ultimate decision could either uphold the appeals court’s ruling or return the case to the agency for further proceedings.