Photo Credit: Karen Cullinane, Did San Francisco Awaken the Ghost of the Chevron Doctrine? The Supreme Court Weighs In, Goldberg Segalla (Oct. 24, 2024), https://environmentallawmonitor.com/clean-water-act/did-san-francisco-awaken-the-ghost-of-the-chevron-doctrine-the-supreme-court-weighs-in/.
Authored by: Naomi Baltins
On March 4, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in City of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, limiting the EPA’s ability to enforce broad water quality mandates through its permitting process.[1] The opinion, authored by Justice Alito, reversed a Ninth Circuit ruling that had upheld the EPA’s ability to include “end-result” requirements in discharge permits.[2] These were provisions that held municipalities accountable for water quality standards without specifying the necessary compliance measures.[3]
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the EPA regulates pollutant discharges into U.S. waters through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).[4] Traditionally, these permits have included effluent limitations, which restrict the amount and type of pollutants an entity may discharge.[5] But in 2019, the EPA took things a step further by including broader “end-result” provisions in San Francisco’s NPDES permit for its Oceanside wastewater treatment facility, prohibiting any discharge that contributed to violations of water quality standards.[6] San Francisco challenged these provisions, arguing that they exceeded the EPA’s authority under the CWA.[7]
Before reaching the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit upheld the EPA’s authority to impose end-result requirements in NPDES permits.[8] The appellate court reasoned that Section 1311(b)(1)(C) of the CWA allows the EPA to impose “any” limitations necessary to meet water quality standards, including requirements that do not explicitly state the steps permittees must take.[9] The Ninth Circuit found that these provisions were consistent with the EPA’s longstanding regulatory framework and necessary to ensure compliance with water quality standards.[10] However, the dissent warned that such an interpretation effectively forced cities to meet undefined environmental goals, potentially overstepping the EPA’s statutory limits.[11]
The Court held that the CWA does not authorize the EPA to impose “end-result” provisions in permits.[12] The Court reasoned that holding municipalities accountable for vague, undefined water quality outcomes creates uncertainty and undermines the law’s “permit shield” provision, which protects permit holders from liability if they adhere to permit conditions.[13]
This decision represents a shift in the balance of regulatory power, signaling that the EPA must set clear, enforceable guidelines rather than broad, outcome-based mandates.[14] This ruling is expected to impact wastewater treatment facilities nationwide, especially in cities with combined sewer systems that struggle with overflows during heavy rainfall, like the one in San Francisco.[15] Without the ability to enforce broad water quality-based permit conditions, the EPA may need to rethink its regulatory strategy, possible setting more specific pollutant limits or exploring alternative compliance methods.
Reactions to the ruling are likely to be split. Environmental advocates may see it as a weakening of water quality protections, while industry groups and municipalities could view it as a necessary check on federal overreach. This case reflects the Supreme Court’s growing skepticism toward the power of federal agencies, a trend that could extend beyond environmental regulation.[16]
The decision comes at a time when environmental policy is a hot-button issue in U.S. politics. The Biden administration pushed for stronger environmental protections against pollution and climate change, often clashing with states and industries that favor deregulation.[17] Meanwhile, conservative legal efforts to limit agency power have gained traction, with the Supreme Court increasingly reining in federal agencies like the EPA, SEC, and FTC.[18]
This ruling fits within a broader pattern of judicial skepticism toward expansive administrative power, echoing recent decisions that challenge the scope of agencies like the EPA, the SEC, and the FTC.[19] This case emphasizes the ongoing debate over federalism and the appropriate balance between state and federal control over environmental policy.
Beyond the EPA, other federal regulations may also be on the chopping block as the Court continues to limit agency authority. Challenges to the Clean Air Act, particularly regarding the EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, could follow. Financial and consumer protection agencies such as the SEC and FTC are seeing increasing restrictions on their ability to regulate corporate practices.[20] As these legal challenges unfold, the extent to which federal agencies can enforce regulatory mandates remains uncertain, leaving future environmental and administrative policies in a state of instability. With regulatory priorities shifting from each presidential administration, the future of environmental oversight remains uncertain. Both industry stakeholders and environmental groups will closely monitor how this ruling impacts legislative initiatives and regulatory policies in the years ahead. As regulatory agencies and local governments adapt to this evolving legal framework, this case is poised to influence future discussions on federal environmental oversight and the scope of agency authority in implementing statutory mandates.
[1] City of San Francisco v. Env’t Prot. Agency, 145 S. Ct. 704, 707 (2025).
[2] Id. at 711.
[3] Id.
[4] Id. at 711-12.
[5] Id. at 712.
[6] Id. at 713.
[7] City of San Francisco, 145 S. Ct at 713.
[8] Id.; see also City of San Francisco v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, 75 F.4th 1074 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. granted sub nom. City of San Francisco v. Env’t Prot. Agency, 144 S. Ct. 2578 (2024), and rev’d and remanded sub nom. City of San Francisco v. Env’t Prot. Agency, 145 S. Ct. 704 (2025).
[9] City of San Francisco, 145 S. Ct. at 713.
[10] City of San Francisco, 75 F.4th at 1090.
[11] Id. at 1107 (Collins, J., dissenting).
[12] City of San Francisco v. EPA, 145 S. Ct. at 720.
[13] Id. at 718.
[14] Id. at 720.
[15] Pamela King & Miranda Willson, 5 things to know about San Francisco’s Supreme Court fight against EPA, POLITICO (Oct. 15, 2024) https://www.eenews.net/articles/5-things-to-know-about-san-franciscos-supreme-court-fight-against-epa/.
[16] Michael Smith et al., Supreme Court Makes Waves In San Francisco Ruling, Brownstein Client Alert (March 11, 2025) https://www.bhfs.com/insights/alerts-articles/2025/supreme-court-makes-waves-in-san-francisco-ruling; Lisa John Rogers, What a recent Supreme Court ruling could mean for the future of the Clean Water Act, Great Lakes Now (March 7, 2025) https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2025/03/what-a-recent-supreme-court-ruling-could-mean-for-the-future-of-the-clean-water-act/.
[17] See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 14,057, 86 Fed. Reg. 70,935 (Dec. 13, 2021) (projecting for a carbon pollution-free electricity sector by 2035 and net-zero emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050); Press Release, FACT SHEET: President Biden Protects Atlantic and Pacific Coasts from Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling (Jan. 6, 2025) https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2025/01/06/fact-sheet-president-biden-protects-atlantic-and-pacific-coasts-from-offshore-oil-and-gas-drilling/.
[18] Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 377 (2024) (overruling the Chevron doctrine); SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109, 115 (2025) (stripping the SEC of its ability to use in-house tribunals when seeking civil penalties).
[19] AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC. v. FTC, 593 U.S. 67, 70 (2021).
[20] Nowell D. Bamberger et. al., Consumer Protection Compliance Remains Crucial in Spite of CFPB Work Stoppage, Cleary Gottlieb (Feb. 20, 2025) https://www.clearyenforcementwatch.com/2025/02/consumer-protection-compliance-remains-crucial-in-spite-of-cfpb-work-stoppage/.
American Journal of Trial Advocacy 