Case Explained: COMMITTEE FOR A BETTER ARVIN, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-05 The ninth-circuit held that the United States Environmental Protection Agency exceeded its statutory authority when it approved a State Implementation Plan for California’s San Joaquin Valley that included a feasibility exemption for contingency measures under Section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act. Applying the standard of review established in *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo*, which requires courts to exercise their independent interpretive authority rather than deferring to agency interpretations, the court concluded that Congress did not expressly provide for a feasibility exemption in Section 172(c)(9). The court reasoned that because other provisions within the Clean Air Act explicitly reference feasibility considerations while Section 172(c)(9) remains silent on the matter, the EPA erred by reading such an exemption into the statute. Furthermore, the court found that the directive for measures to be “specific” and to “take effect” without further action did not implicitly grant the EPA discretion to consider feasibility, as doing so would undermine the statutory purpose of contingency measures as a reliable backup to ensure continued emissions reductions when primary plans fail. The court remanded the case to the EPA without vacatur to allow for reconsideration of the rule while avoiding the disruptive consequences of the Valley lacking contingency measures during the agency’s review process. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.