National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that challenges to the EPA's 2015 rule defining "waters of the United States" must start in federal district courts, not directly in the federal courts of appeals.
The decision rejects the government's argument that a special fast-track review law for certain EPA actions covered this rule, meaning the many pending lawsuits over the rule's validity had to be refiled in trial courts instead of an appeals court.
“The WOTUS Rule falls outside the ambit of §1369(b)(1), and any challenges to the Rule therefore must be filed in federal district courts.”
The Court's core holding on where challenges to the rule must be filed.
How it got here: Parties sued in federal district courts and, separately, filed protective petitions in appeals courts; the consolidated appellate cases went to the Sixth Circuit, which denied motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court took the case.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers issued a 2015 regulation, the WOTUS Rule, defining which streams, wetlands, and other waters count as "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act. A manufacturers' trade group and other parties sued to challenge the rule, but before reaching the merits, the courts had to figure out which kind of federal court was even allowed to hear those challenges in the first place.
The question before the Court
When businesses and states wanted to challenge the federal government's new definition of which waterways count as "waters of the United States," did they have to sue in a regular trial court or go straight to a federal appeals court?
Why it matters
Businesses, states, and environmental groups fighting over how far federal water pollution law reaches now know where to file: ordinary federal trial courts, which typically means slower, more localized litigation rather than a single nationwide appeals-court ruling. That affects how quickly and consistently future disputes over the scope of the Clean Water Act get resolved.
What changes now
The case goes back to the Sixth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the petitions for lack of jurisdiction. Anyone still wanting to challenge the WOTUS Rule (or its successors) must do so in federal district court. This is a final ruling on the jurisdictional question, though it does not touch the substantive dispute over what the Clean Water Act actually requires, which remains for those district-court cases to decide.
What this does not decide
The Court did not rule on whether the WOTUS Rule itself is a lawful or sound interpretation of the Clean Water Act -- only on which type of federal court gets to hear that dispute first. The substantive validity of the rule was left for the district courts to sort out.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court examined whether the WOTUS Rule fit within either of two special categories of EPA action that a federal law sends straight to the courts of appeals rather than through ordinary district-court review: actions approving or promulgating an 'effluent limitation or other limitation' under specific Clean Water Act sections, and actions issuing or denying discharge permits.
- For the 'other limitation' category, the Court read that phrase narrowly, holding it must mean something similar to an effluent limitation -- a restriction tied to pollutant discharges -- because it appears grouped with 'effluent limitation' and its neighboring statutory cross-references all impose discharge restrictions. Since the WOTUS Rule only defines a term rather than restricting any discharge, it did not qualify.
- The Court also found the Rule was not adopted 'under' the specific statutory section the government relied on, because that section does not give the agencies power to define terms used elsewhere in the law; the agencies actually relied on a separate, general rulemaking provision.
- The Court rejected the government's proposed 'practical effects' approach, under which any rule that indirectly shapes discharge limits would count, because that reading is not grounded in the statute's words and would make other parts of the law meaningless.
- Turning to the permit-issuance category, the Court held the Rule neither issues nor denies any individual discharge permit, and rejected the government's argument that the Rule is 'functionally similar' to a permit decision, because that theory strayed from the statute's text and would make a separate provision about permit-program approvals pointless.
- Having found neither category applied, and having found the government's efficiency and uniformity arguments insufficient to override the statute's plain terms, the Court concluded that ordinary federal trial courts are the correct starting point for challenges to the Rule.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle (445 U. S. 193)
Held the case does not support treating the water rule as functionally equivalent to a permit decision.
Distinguishes Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion (470 U. S. 729)
Found its presumption favoring appeals-court review inapplicable because this statute's scope is clear, not ambiguous.