EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C.

Summary

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA’s denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the “nationwide scope or effect” exception, requiring venue in the D. C. Circuit. See 42 U. S. C. §7607(b)(1).

Text

PRELIMINARY PRINT 
Volume 605 U. S. Part 2 
Pages 627–664 
OFFICIAL REPORTS 
OF 
THE SUPREME COURT 
June 18, 2025 
REBECCA A. WOMELDORF 
reporter of decisions 
Page Proof Pending Publication
NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before 
the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter 
of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, 
[email protected], of any typographical or other formal errors.

Page Proof Pending Publication
OCTOBER TERM, 2024 627 
Syllabus 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY v. CALU-
MET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C., et al. 
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for 
the fth circuit 
No. 23–1229. Argued March 25, 2025—Decided June 18, 2025 
The Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a comprehensive venue framework 
for judicial review of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actions 
designed to ensure proper distribution of cases among federal courts. 
Under 42 U. S. C. § 7607(b)(1), “nationally applicable” EPA actions must 
be challenged exclusively in the D. C. Circuit, while “locally or region-
ally applicable” actions ordinarily belong in regional Circuits. How-
ever, locally or regionally applicable actions that are “based on a deter-
mination of nationwide scope or effect” must be reviewed in the D. C. 
Circuit if EPA fnds and publishes that such basis exists. This tripar-
tite system refects congressional intent to channel nationally signifcant 
EPA actions to the D. C. Circuit while keeping most regionally focused 
matters in local Circuits. 
Under the CAA's renewable fuel program, most domestic refneries 
must blend specifed amounts of ethanol and other renewable fuels into 
transportation fuels they produce. The Act provides a phased exemp-
tion scheme for small refneries—those processing no more than 75,000 
barrels of crude oil daily—allowing them to petition EPA for exemp-
tions based on “disproportionate economic hardship.” § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i). 
Following this Court's decision in HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refning, 
LLC v. Renewable Fuels Assn., 594 U. S. 382, which clarifed that small 
refneries could obtain exemption “extensions” even after their original 
exemptions had lapsed, the D. C. Circuit remanded pending exemption 
cases to EPA for reconsideration. 
EPA then proposed and ultimately denied 105 small refnery exemp-
tion petitions in two omnibus notices issued in April and July 2022. 
EPA's denials were based on two principal determinations: frst, its in-
terpretation that “disproportionate economic hardship” covers only 
hardship directly caused by renewable fuel program compliance; and 
second, its economic theory that Renewable Identifcation Number 
(RIN) costs are fully passed through to consumers, creating a presump-
tion against granting exemptions. EPA applied these determinations 
uniformly while conducting confrmatory reviews of individual refnery 
circumstances. EPA asserted in its denial notices that the denials were 
reviewable only in the D. C. Circuit, either as “nationally applicable”

628 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Syllabus 
actions or, alternatively, as locally applicable actions “based on a deter-
mination of nationwide scope or effect.” 
Small refneries challenged these denials in multiple regional Circuits. 
Most Circuits either dismissed the challenges for improper venue or 
transferred them to the D. C. Circuit. However, the Fifth Circuit re-
tained jurisdiction, rejecting EPA's venue arguments and ruling for the 
refneries on the merits. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that EPA's actions 
were merely locally applicable because their “ legal effect” was limited 
to the petitioning refneries, and that the actions were not based on 
determinations of nationwide scope or effect because EPA still exam-
ined refnery-specifc facts before issuing denials. 
Held: EPA's denials of small refnery exemption petitions are locally or 
regionally applicable actions that fall within the “nationwide scope or 
effect” exception, requiring venue in the D. C. Circuit. Pp. 636–650. 
(a) Section 7607(b)(1) creates a two-step inquiry for determining 
venue. First, courts assess whether an EPA action is nationally appli-
cable or only locally or regionally applicable. If nationally applicable, 
the case belongs in the D. C. Circuit. If locally or regionally applicable, 
courts proceed to the second step to determine whether the “nationwide 
scope or effect” exception applies to override the default rule of regional 
Circuit review. Pp. 636–642. 
(1) To identify the relevant “action,” courts must look to the author-
izing CAA provision rather than how EPA packages its decisions. The 
enumerated “actions” in § 7607(b)(1) make clear that this provision 
“treats each activity the Clean Air Act allows the EPA to take as a 
distinct `action.' ” Kentucky v. EPA, 123 F. 4th 447, 460. Because the 
CAA allows “[a] small refnery” to “petition [EPA] for an extension of 
[its] exemption” and requires EPA to “act on any petition submitted,” 
each EPA denial of a refnery's exemption petition constitutes its own 
“action” for venue purposes. Pp. 636–638. 
(2) An action is “nationally applicable” if it applies “[o]n its face” 
throughout the entire country, or only “locally or regionally applicable” 
if it applies only to particular localities or regions. Sierra Club v. EPA, 
926 F. 3d 844, 849. EPA's denial of a single refnery's exemption peti-
tion applies only to that refnery, a particular entity in a particular place, 
making such denials paradigmatically “locally or regionally applicable” 
actions. Pp. 638–640. 
(3) EPA's argument that it can control the unit of “action” for venue 
purposes by aggregating similar petitions into omnibus notices lacks any 
statutory limiting principle and would effectively give EPA veto power 
over venue. EPA's position that any action affecting more than one 
Circuit is nationally applicable would render actions with plainly local 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 629 
Syllabus 
or regional focus “nationally applicable” simply because the locality or 
region straddles Circuit lines. Pp. 640–642. 
(b) Because EPA's actions are locally or regionally applicable, the 
Court must determine whether the “nationwide scope or effect” excep-
tion applies. This exception requires that (1) the action “is based on a 
determination of nationwide scope or effect,” and (2) EPA “fnds and 
publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” All agree 
the second requirement is satisfed. Pp. 642–650. 
(1) A “determination” refers to EPA's justifcations in taking the 
action. Determinations are of nationwide “scope” if they apply 
throughout the country “as a legal matter (de jure)” and of nationwide 
“effect” if they so apply “as a practical [matter] (de facto).” Kentucky, 
123 F. 4th, at 465. An EPA action is “based on” a determination of 
nationwide scope or effect only if that determination “lie[s] at the core 
of the agency action” and forms the primary explanation for and driver 
of EPA's action. Texas v. EPA, 829 F. 3d 405, 419. This requires more 
than but-for causation; it requires that a justifcation of nationwide 
breadth be the most important part of EPA's reasoning. Courts should 
evaluate this de novo. Pp. 643–646. 
(2) Applying this framework, EPA's exemption denials were based 
on determinations of nationwide scope or effect. EPA's interpretation 
of “disproportionate economic hardship” under § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i) and its 
RIN passthrough theory are clear determinations of nationwide scope 
or effect that apply generically to all refneries regardless of geographic 
location. These determinations formed the core basis for EPA's denials 
because EPA used them to reach a presumptive resolution to deny all 
petitions, then considered refnery-specifc factors only to confrm it had 
no reason to depart from this presumptive disposition. Where EPA 
relies on determinations of nationwide scope or effect to reach a pre-
sumptive resolution, those determinations qualify as the primary driver 
of its decision. EPA's confrmatory review of refnery-specifc facts 
is “[m]erely peripheral” by comparison. Texas, 829 F. 3d, at 419. 
Pp. 646–647. 
(3) The Court rejects EPA's argument that “determination” covers 
only the resolution of unsettled issues, as well as respondents' argument 
that “determination” is a term of art applicable only when a CAA provi-
sion textually directs EPA to make a “determination” for the entire 
Nation. The Court also rejects the argument that EPA's consideration 
of refnery-specifc facts precludes the exception's application, noting 
that the exception requires an action be “based on,” not “based solely 
on,” a determination of nationwide scope or effect. Pp. 647–650. 
86 F. 4th 1121, vacated and remanded. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

630 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Syllabus 
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Alito, Soto-
mayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Gor-
such, J., fled a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., joined, post, 
p. 650. 
Deputy Solicitor General Stewart argued the cause for 
petitioner. With him on the briefs were Acting Solicitor 
General Harris, Solicitor General Prelogar, Assistant At-
torney General Kim, Aimee W. Brown, Bryan J. Harrison, 
Susannah Weaver , and Matthew Marks. 
Seth P . Waxman argued the cause for respondents Growth 
Energy et al. in support of petitioner. With him on the 
briefs were Matthew W. Morrison, Shelby L. Dyl, and David 
M. Lehn. 
Michael R. Huston argued the cause for respondent Calu-
met Shreveport Refning, L.L.C., et al. With him on the 
brief were Karl J. Worsham, Jordan M. Buckwald, Sopen 
Shah, Alexandra M. Bromer, Jonathan G. Hardin, Aimee E. 
Ford, and Eric Wolff .* 
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for the State of New 
York et al. by Letitia James, Attorney General of New York, Barbara D. 
Underwood, Solicitor General, Judith N. Vale, Deputy Solicitor General, 
Elizabeth A. Brody , Assistant Solicitor General, and Morgan A. Costello 
and Claiborne E. Walthall, Assistant Attorneys General, by Christian 
Menefee, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions 
as follows: Kris Mayes of Arizona, Philip J. Weiser of Colorado, William 
Tong of Connecticut, Kathleen Jennings of Delaware, Brian L. Schwalb 
of the District of Columbia, Kwame Raoul of Illinois, Anthony G. Brown 
of Maryland, Andrea Joy Campbell of Massachusetts, Dana Nessel of 
Michigan, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Matthew J. Platkin of New Jersey, 
Ellen F. Rosenblum of Oregon, Michelle A. Henry of Pennsylvania, Peter 
F. Neronha of Rhode Island, Charity R. Clark of Vermont, Robert W. 
Ferguson of Washington, and Joshua L. Kaul of Wisconsin; and for 
NATSO et al. by Hyland Hunt and Ruthanne M. Deutsch. 
Briefs of amici curiae urging affrmance were fled for Countrymark 
Refning and Logistics, LLC, by Aaron M. Herzig and Philip D. William-
son; and for Sen. Mike Lee et al. by R. Trent McCotter . 
Jeremy C. Marwell, Jennifer B. Dickey , Andrew R. Varcoe , and Eric 
Groten fled a brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of 
America as amicus curiae . 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 631 
Opinion of the Court 
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. 
The Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a tripartite system 
for determining venue in CAA litigation. Challenges to 
“nationally applicable” Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) actions belong in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 
D. C. Circuit, while challenges to “locally or regionally appli-
cable” EPA actions ordinarily belong in a regional Circuit. 
42 U. S. C. § 7607(b)(1). But, the CAA makes an exception 
for local or regional actions that are “based on a determina-
tion of nationwide scope or effect” and accompanied by an 
EPA fnding of this basis, which also must be challenged in 
the D. C. Circuit. Ibid. Applying this framework to EPA's 
2022 denials of certain small refneries' exemption petitions, 
we hold that the refneries' challenges belong in the D. C. 
Circuit. EPA's denials are only locally or regionally applica-
ble, but they fall within the “nationwide scope or effect” 
exception. 
I 
A 
Section 7607(b)(1)—the CAA's venue provision—governs 
where petitioners should fle challenges to EPA actions 
under that statute. As originally enacted, § 7607(b)(1) dic-
tated venue only for an enumerated subset of EPA actions. 
Certain actions with a national reach, such as “any national 
primary or secondary ambient air quality standard” 
(NAAQS) were reviewable only in the D. C. Circuit. 
§ 1857h–5(b)(1) (1970 ed.). Area-specific “implementation 
plan[s]” went to “the appropriate” regional Circuit. Ibid. 
Any other unmentioned actions could be heard only in dis-
trict courts through their general grant of federal-question 
jurisdiction. Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., 446 U. S. 
578, 584 (1980); see 28 U. S. C. § 1331. 
In 1977, Congress replaced this patchwork system with 
the CAA's current scheme, which makes all EPA actions di-
rectly reviewable in a federal court of appeals. 91 Stat. 776 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
632 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Opinion of the Court 
(codified as amended at 42 U. S. C. § 7607(b)(1)). The 
amended statute specifes that, in addition to NAAQS and 
other enumerated actions, “any other nationally applicable 
. . . fnal action taken” by EPA under the CAA may be re-
viewed only in the D. C. Circuit. § 7607(b)(1). And, in addi-
tion to implementation plans, “any other fnal action of [EPA] 
under this chapter . . . which is locally or regionally applica-
ble” ordinarily may be reviewed only in a regional Circuit. 
Ibid. Congress has since amended the CAA to specify addi-
tional kinds of actions that fall within these two categories. 
91 Stat. 1404; 104 Stat. 2681. 
Congress also created a third venue category in the 1977 
amendments. This category provided an exception to the 
default rule that locally or regionally applicable actions 
should be reviewed in the regional Circuits. Congress in-
structed that a locally or regionally applicable action must 
be reviewed in the D. C. Circuit “if [it] is based on a determi-
nation of nationwide scope or effect” and “if in taking such 
action [EPA] fnds and publishes that such action is based on 
such a determination.” § 7607(b)(1). 
B 
The EPA actions at issue in this case relate to the CAA's 
renewable fuel program (RFP). The RFP “requires most 
domestic refneries to blend a certain amount of ethanol and 
other renewable fuels into the transportation fuels they 
produce.” HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refning, LLC v. Re-
newable Fuels Assn., 594 U. S. 382, 385 (2021). Each cov-
ered refnery's precise obligation turns on its proportional 
share of various “nationwide volume mandates.” Id., at 
385–386; see §§ 7545(o)(2)(A)(i), (o)(3); 40 CFR § 80.1407(a) 
(2024). 
Covered refneries demonstrate compliance through a sys-
tem of Renewable Identifcation Number credits (RINs). 
See 40 CFR §§ 80.1425, 80.1426(a). A refnery generates 
RINs whenever it blends renewable fuels, § 80.1426(a),

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 633 
Opinion of the Court 
and refneries may also buy and sell RINs, 42 U. S. C. 
§ 7545(o)(5)(B). Thus, each year, a refnery may show 
compliance “thanks to its own blending efforts, the purchase 
of credits from someone else, or a combination of both.” 
HollyFrontier , 594 U. S., at 386. 
The CAA contains a phased exemption scheme for small 
refneries—i. e., refneries whose “average aggregate daily 
crude oil throughput for a calendar year . . . does not exceed 
75,000 barrels.” § 7545(o)(1)(K). The scheme exempted all 
small refneries from RFP compliance until 2011. § 7545(o) 
(9)(A)(i). It then required EPA to extend this blanket ex-
emption, for at least two years, for all small refneries found 
by a Department of Energy study to face “disproportionate 
economic hardship” if subjected to the RFP's obligations. 
§ 7545(o)(9)(A)(ii). Finally, the scheme allows a small refn-
ery to “at any time petition [EPA] for an extension of [its] 
exemption . . . for the reason of disproportionate economic 
hardship.” § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i). We interpreted this last pro-
vision in HollyFrontier , holding that a small refnery may 
obtain an “extension” even after its original exemption has 
lapsed. Id., at 396. 
C 
This case arose in the aftermath of HollyFrontier. Pend-
ing that decision, the D. C. Circuit had been holding in abey-
ance challenges to EPA's resolution of 36 small refneries' 
exemption petitions for the 2018 compliance year. After-
wards, that court granted EPA's motion for remand without 
vacatur, so that EPA could reconsider its orders in light of 
the HollyFrontier litigation. Order in Sinclair Wyoming 
Refning Co. v. EPA, No. 19–1196 etc. (CADC, Dec. 8, 2021), 
p. 3. The D. C. Circuit instructed EPA to issue its new deci-
sions within 120 days. Ibid. 
Shortly thereafter, EPA noticed for public comment a pro-
posal to deny all pending exemption petitions. 86 Fed. Reg. 
71000 (2021). EPA's notice set out two principles. First, 
EPA offered its interpretation of “disproportionate economic 
Page Proof Pending Publication

634 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Opinion of the Court 
hardship,” the CAA's threshold for an exemption petition to 
be granted. § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i). On EPA's view, that phrase 
covers only hardship that is caused by RFP compliance. 
App. in No. 22–60266 etc. (CA5), pp. 545–548. Second, EPA 
theorized that, as a matter of economics, small refneries or-
dinarily do not suffer disproportionate economic hardship as 
a result of the RFP because “RIN costs are fully passed 
through to consumers.” Id., at 549; see id., at 548–584. 
Based on this “RIN passthrough” theory, EPA proposed de-
nying all pending petitions “by fnding the petitioning refn-
eries do not face [disproportionate economic hardship] caused 
by compliance with their [RFP] obligations.” 86 Fed. Reg. 
71000. 
After receiving comments, EPA followed through and de-
nied the pending exemption petitions in two omnibus notices. 
EPA issued the frst in April 2022 to deny the 36 petitions 
subject to the D. C. Circuit's deadline. 87 Fed. Reg. 24300. 
EPA issued the second in July 2022, to deny an additional 69 
petitions from the 2016 to 2021 compliance years. Id., at 
34874. In both notices, EPA relied primarily on the princi-
ples from its proposal—namely, its statutory interpretation 
of “disproportionate economic hardship” and its RIN pass-
through theory. App. to Pet. for Cert. 100a, 107a, 242a, 
249a. EPA treated the passthrough theory as creating a 
presumption against granting exemptions, and it examined 
the petitioning refneries' evidence regarding their specifc 
circumstances to confrm that none of the refneries had re-
butted this presumption. See id., at 107a–108a, 163a–168a, 
249a–250a, 305a–310a. 
EPA also asserted in the denial notices that its denials 
were reviewable only in the D. C. Circuit. According to 
EPA, the notices were “ `nationally applicable' ” actions 
under § 7607(b)(1). Id., at 187a, 328a. Alternatively, if the 
actions were only “locally or regionally applicable,” then 
EPA invoked the exception for actions “based on a determi-
nation of `nationwide scope or effect.' ” Ibid. EPA in-
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 635 
Opinion of the Court 
cluded in both notices a fnding that its new statutory inter-
pretation and RIN passthrough theory supplied the relevant 
determinations of nationwide scope or effect. Id., at 
187a–188a, 329a. 
Notwithstanding EPA's position, small refneries chal-
lenged these denials in a host of regional Circuits. Agree-
ing with EPA that the litigation belonged in the D. C. Cir-
cuit, most of these Circuits either dismissed the petitions for 
improper venue or transferred them to the D. C. Circuit.
1 
The Fifth Circuit took a different approach. Evaluating 
the petitions fled by six small refneries (respondents here), 
the Fifth Circuit held that the litigation was properly before 
it. The majority rejected the arguments for transfer raised 
by EPA and a group of intervenors, reasoning that EPA's 
notices were merely locally or regionally applicable actions, 
because their “ legal effect” was limited to the petitioning 
refneries. 86 F. 4th 1121, 1131–1132 (2023). And, contra 
EPA, the notices were not based on any determination of 
nationwide scope or effect. Both EPA's new interpretation 
and its RIN passthrough theory “fail[ed] to provide the 
agency with a suffcient basis to adjudicate exemption peti-
tions,” because EPA still looked to refnery-specifc facts be-
fore it issued its denials. Id., at 1133. Accordingly, the case 
properly belonged in the Fifth Circuit, and the majority pro-
ceeded to rule against EPA on the merits, vacating and re-
manding EPA's denials for further consideration. Id., at 
1133, 1142. 
Judge Higginbotham dissented on venue grounds. In his 
view, EPA's denial notices were nationally applicable because 
they applied throughout the country: EPA applied a consist-
1 See, e. g., Orders in American Rfg. Group, Inc. v. EPA, No. 22–1991 
(CA3, Aug. 9, 2022), ECF Doc. 23; Countrymark Rfg. & Logistics, LLC v. 
EPA, No. 22–1878 (CA7, July 20, 2022), ECF Doc. 13; Calumet Mont. Rfg., 
LLC v. EPA, No. 22–70124 (CA9, Oct. 25, 2022), ECF Doc. 16; Wyoming 
Rfg. Co. v. EPA, No. 22–9538 (CA10, Aug. 23, 2022), ECF Doc. 26; see also 
Hunt Rfg. Co. v. EPA, 90 F. 4th 1107, 1113 (CA11 2024). 
Page Proof Pending Publication

636 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Opinion of the Court 
ent approach to small refneries spanning “eighteen different 
states, in the geographical boundaries of eight different cir-
cuit courts.” Id., at 1143–1144. And, if the notices were 
only locally or regionally applicable, then EPA was correct 
to fnd that the “nationwide scope or effect” exception ap-
plied: EPA's statutory interpretation and its passthrough 
theory were “core determinations” that have nationwide 
scope or effect in that they “are applicable to all small refn-
eries no matter the location or market in which they oper-
ate.” Id., at 1145. We granted certiorari to clarify where 
venue properly lies. 604 U. S. 997 (2024). 
II 
Section 7607(b)(1) creates a two-step inquiry for determin-
ing venue. At the frst step, we assess whether an EPA 
action is nationally applicable, or only locally or regionally 
applicable. If the action is nationally applicable, then our 
inquiry ends: The case belongs in the D. C. Circuit. If the 
action is locally or regionally applicable, then we proceed to 
the second step. There, we ask whether the “nationwide 
scope or effect” exception applies to override the default rule 
that locally or regionally applicable actions belong in the re-
gional Circuits. Turning to § 7607(b)(1)'s frst step, we hold 
that the actions before us are only locally or regionally 
applicable. 
A 
To properly categorize EPA's actions at the frst step, we 
must determine what the relevant “action” is, and what it 
means for an action to be “nationally applicable” as opposed 
to “locally or regionally applicable.” Once those principles 
are clarifed, the categorization here is straightforward. 
1 
Because § 7607(b)(1) pegs venue to the scope of the EPA 
action being challenged, our threshold task is to identify the 
“action” at issue. To do so, we must read “action” in its 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 637 
Opinion of the Court 
context. That word means “a thing done.” Webster's 
Third New International Dictionary 21 (1976) (Webster's); 
see also Black's Law Dictionary 26 (5th ed. 1979) (Black's) 
(“something done”). But, we could defne the “thing done” 
by EPA in different ways. Both EPA's denials of each indi-
vidual exemption petition and its aggregation of those deni-
als into omnibus notices are in a sense things done. The 
former is an “activity the Clean Air Act allows the EPA to 
take,” while the latter is how EPA has chosen to undertake 
that activity. Kentucky v. EPA, 123 F. 4th 447, 460 (CA6 
2024). 
To determine which framing matters for purposes of 
§ 7607(b)(1), we look to the example “actions” this provision 
enumerates. Section 7607(b)(1) lists various examples of 
EPA actions that qualify as either “nationally applicable” or 
“locally or regionally applicable.” For both these terms, it 
then provides a catchall for “any other” “fnal action.” And, 
we “interpret a `general or collective term' . . . in light of 
any `common attribute[s]' shared by” statutory examples of 
that term. Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U. S. 450, 
458 (2022). 
The enumerated “actions” in § 7607(b)(1) make clear that 
this provision “treats each activity the Clean Air Act allows 
the EPA to take as a distinct `action.' ” Kentucky, 123 
F. 4th, at 460. These “actions” all refer to particular exer-
cises of EPA authority undertaken pursuant to particular 
CAA provisions. For instance, the example of a NAAQS 
must be understood by reference to § 7409(a), which directs 
EPA to issue a NAAQS “for each air pollutant,” and thus 
indicates that each pollutant-specifc standard is its own “ac-
tion.” Likewise, § 7607(b)(1)'s example of EPA's approval of 
an “implementation plan under section 7410” must be read 
in light of § 7410, which makes clear that an implementation 
plan is a proposal “submitted by a State,” and thus indicates 
that EPA's approval decision is state specifc. § 7410(a)(2). 
In each case, the enumerated EPA “action” is defned by ref-
Page Proof Pending Publication

638 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Opinion of the Court 
erence to the substantive authority under which EPA is act-
ing. See id., at 461. 
Accordingly, for both § 7607(b)(1)'s enumerated examples 
and “any other . . . fnal action taken” by EPA “under this 
chapter,” we must look to the authorizing CAA provision to 
identify the “action” at hand. This provision makes the 
CAA's framing of the relevant “action” controlling, regard-
less of how EPA chooses to package its decisions in the Fed-
eral Register.
2 
2 
The next question is whether a given action is “nationally 
applicable” or only “locally or regionally applicable.” Be-
cause § 7607(b)(1) does not defne those terms, we presump-
tively give those terms their ordinary meaning. Burrage v. 
United States, 571 U. S. 204, 210 (2014). The word “ `[n]a-
tional' contemplates an activity with a nationwide scope,” 
while the words “local” and “regional” relate only to particu-
lar “place[s]” or regions. See Black's 845, 923. And, the 
word “applicable” requires us to ask what the EPA action in 
question “ `ha[s] reference to.' ” Kentucky, 123 F. 4th, at 459. 
Put another way, we ask whether the action “[o]n its face” 
applies throughout the entire country, or only to particular 
localities or regions. Sierra Club v. EPA, 926 F. 3d 844, 849 
(CADC 2019). 
The statutory context supplied by § 7607(b)(1)'s enumer-
ated examples confrms the correctness of this ordinary-
meaning approach. The actions that § 7607(b)(1) identifes 
as “nationally applicable” facially apply nationwide. For ex-
ample, courts have identifed a NAAQS—a “ `national pri-
mary or secondary ambient air quality standard' ”—as “[t]he 
textbook example of nationally applicable action.” Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 47 F. 4th 738, 743 (CADC 2022). Conversely, 
2 The Fifth Circuit therefore erred in summarily accepting EPA's char-
acterization of its omnibus notices as the “two EPA actions” at issue in 
this case. 86 F. 4th 1121, 1129 (2023); see supra, at 635. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 639 
Opinion of the Court 
the actions that the CAA enumerates as “locally or region-
ally applicable” all have more particularized reach. For in-
stance, “the prototypical `locally or regionally applicable' ac-
tion” is EPA's approval of a state implementation plan, 
which, as explained, is state specifc. American Road & 
Transp. Builders Assn. v. EPA, 705 F. 3d 453, 455 (CADC 
2013) (majority opinion of Kavanaugh, J.); supra, at 637. Be-
cause catchall “clauses are to be read as bringing within a 
statute categories similar in type to those specifcally enu-
merated,” the examples make clear that the ordinary mean-
ing of the terms “nationally applicable” and “locally or re-
gionally applicable” controls. Federal Maritime Comm'n v. 
Seatrain Lines, Inc., 411 U. S. 726, 734 (1973).
3 
3 
Applying these principles here, we treat each EPA denial 
of a refnery's exemption petition as its own “action” for 
venue purposes. And, EPA's denial of a single refnery's pe-
tition plainly is only locally or regionally applicable. 
This conclusion follows from how the CAA defnes the sub-
mission and evaluation of an RFP exemption petition. The 
CAA allows “[a] small refnery” to “at any time petition 
[EPA] for an extension of [its] exemption” from RFP obliga-
tions. § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i). EPA, in turn, is to “evaluat[e] a 
petition” and then “act on any petition submitted . . . not 
later than 90 days after the date of receipt of the petition.” 
§§ 7545(o)(9)(B)(ii)–(iii). Thus, the CAA pegs EPA's “ac-
3 Because 42 U. S. C. § 7607(b)(1) requires all actions to be either nation-
ally applicable or locally or regionally applicable, diffcult edge cases may 
arise. For example, if an EPA action must “formally appl[y]” to “the 
whole country” to be nationally applicable, Kentucky v. EPA, 123 F. 4th 
447, 460 (CA6 2024), then actions could apply to nearly the entire country 
yet still be locally or regionally applicable, see, e. g., § 7545(i)(4). But, if 
an action that formally applies to only a subset of the country can be 
nationally applicable, see ATK Launch Systems, Inc. v. EPA, 651 F. 3d 
1194, 1197 (CA10 2011), then line-drawing questions may arise, Kentucky, 
123 F. 4th, at 460–462. This case, however, does not present these issues. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

640 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Opinion of the Court 
tions” under the exemption provision by reference to each 
individual exemption petition. 
Against this backdrop, our classification decision is 
straightforward. By defnition, EPA's denial of a single re-
fnery's exemption petition only applies to that refnery, 
which is a particular entity located in a particular place. 
That limited reach makes EPA's denials paradigmatically 
“locally or regionally applicable” actions. See Sierra Club , 
926 F. 3d, at 849. 
B 
We are unpersuaded by EPA's and the intervenors' coun-
terarguments. EPA proffers its omnibus denial notices as 
the relevant “actions” on the ground that it has the discretion 
to structure its decisions. According to EPA, it is free to 
“aggregate similar petitions for joint resolution” in a single 
“action”—here, its omnibus Federal Register notices—given 
its right as an agency “ `to fashion [its] own rules of proce-
dure and to pursue methods of inquiry capable of permitting 
[it] to discharge [its] multitudinous duties.' ” Brief for Peti-
tioner 26–27 (quoting FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 
309 U. S. 134, 143 (1940)). But, whatever discretion EPA 
has to manage its internal affairs, Congress conclusively de-
fned the term “action” in § 7607(b)(1) to focus on the specifc 
statutory authority EPA is exercising. 
Tellingly, EPA's position that it can control the unit of “ac-
tion” used to determine venue lacks any statutory limiting 
principle. If EPA had free rein to group decisions into a 
single “action” for venue purposes, then it could bundle even 
unrelated matters into one Federal Register pronouncement 
that is, in the aggregate, nationally applicable. Such a possi-
bility would effectively give EPA a veto power over venue 
under the CAA. We see no reason to read § 7607(b)(1) to 
permit such gamesmanship. Absent indication that Con-
gress meant to give a party unfettered control over venue, 
we will not read a venue provision to confer such broad dis-
cretion. Cf. Deal v. United States, 508 U. S. 129, 133–134 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 641 
Opinion of the Court 
(1993) (disfavoring a reading that would “give a prosecutor 
unreviewable discretion” as to a sentencing enhancement's 
applicability). 
Because EPA does not dispute that the actions here can 
be nationally applicable only if it is right that the omnibus 
denial notices are the relevant “actions,” we need not resolve 
EPA's remaining arguments. At a minimum, however, we 
note that EPA's theory for distinguishing between nationally 
applicable and locally or regionally applicable actions cannot 
withstand scrutiny. EPA argues that any agency action is 
nationally applicable if it affects more than one Circuit. 
But, as we have recognized, the term “nationally applicable” 
bears its ordinary meaning, supra, at 638, and EPA's view 
would render actions with a plainly local or regional focus 
“nationally applicable” simply because the locality or region 
at issue straddles Circuit lines. For example, some EPA air 
quality control regions cover metropolitan areas that extend 
into two Circuits. It would defy credulity to say that an 
EPA action regarding such a region would therefore be na-
tionally applicable rather than locally or regionally applica-
ble. Cf. Brief for Small Refnery Respondents 41 (“Can 
there be any doubt that an EPA disapproval of a regional 
implementation plan for only Region 90 (Metropolitan Kan-
sas City) is a `regionally applicable' action . . . , even though 
that action touches both the Eighth and Tenth Circuits?”). 
Whatever the precise line should be, see n. 3, supra, EPA's 
line cannot be it. 
EPA justifes its position based on § 7607(b)(1)'s language 
equating regional Circuit review with review in “ the appro-
priate circuit.” § 7607(b)(1) (emphasis added). To be re-
viewable only in a single “appropriate circuit,” EPA con-
tends, the category of “locally or regionally applicable” 
actions must be limited to those actions affecting only one 
Circuit. But, in the absence of other evidence, § 7607(b)(1)'s 
use of the defnite article “the” is too thin a reed to support 
EPA's conclusion. See 1 U. S. C. § 1 (directing that “words 
Page Proof Pending Publication

642 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Opinion of the Court 
importing the singular include and apply to several persons, 
parties, or things” “unless the context indicates otherwise”). 
Finally, we fnd no merit in the intervenors' arguments for 
why the denial of an individual refnery's exemption petition 
should still be considered nationally applicable. According 
to the intervenors, the individual denials are nationally ap-
plicable because they have follow-on effects for the amount 
of renewable fuel that must be produced under the RFP and 
because EPA in issuing the denials announced a new stand-
ard for adjudicating exemption petitions. But, again, we de-
termine an action's range of applicability by “look[ing] only 
to the face of the [action], rather than to its practical effects.” 
American Road & Transp. Builders Assn., 705 F. 3d, at 456. 
Any follow-on implications of EPA's denials have no bearing 
on our analysis of their facial applicability. Cf. Sierra Club , 
47 F. 4th, at 744 (“The fact that `EPA's interpretive reason-
ing' may have `precedential effect in future EPA proceedings 
. . . does not make [an action] nationally applicable' ”). 
III 
Because we conclude that EPA's actions were only locally 
or regionally applicable, we must proceed to the second step 
of the § 7607(b)(1) inquiry. That is, we ask whether the “na-
tionwide scope or effect” exception applies to override the 
default of regional Circuit review for locally or regionally 
applicable actions. This exception channels an action to the 
D. C. Circuit if (1) it “is based on a determination of nation-
wide scope or effect,” and (2) “in taking such action [EPA] 
fnds and publishes that such action is based on such a deter-
mination.” § 7607(b)(1). Here, all agree that the second re-
quirement is satisfed: EPA included the necessary fnding in 
both its April and June denial notices. Supra, at 634–635. 
Accordingly, the question before us is whether EPA's exemp-
tion denials were “based on a determination of nationwide 
scope or effect.” We conclude that they were. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 643 
Opinion of the Court 
A 
Here too, we begin by laying out the framework for decid-
ing whether an action is “based on a determination of nation-
wide scope or effect.” We conclude that this requirement is 
met if such a determination supplies a core justifcation for 
EPA's action and that courts should evaluate the basis for 
EPA's determinations de novo . Applying that framework, 
we hold that this case is one in which the “nationwide scope 
or effect” exception applies. 
1 
To understand the phrase “based on a determination of 
nationwide scope or effect,” we again turn to ordinary mean-
ing. Burrage, 571 U. S., at 210. In particular, we look to 
the plain meaning of this phrase's component words, which 
are all terms of everyday usage. And, we read these words 
“in their context and with a view to their place in the overall 
statutory scheme.” Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury , 
489 U. S. 803, 809 (1989). 
To begin, a “determination” is the “settling and ending of 
a controversy,” or “the resolving of a question by argument 
or reasoning.” Webster's 616; see also 4 Oxford English 
Dictionary 548 (2d ed. 1989) (“[t]he decision arrived at or 
promulgated; a determinate sentence, conclusion, or opin-
ion”). In an EPA action, EPA's underlying “determinations 
are the justifcations [it] gives for the action,” which “can be 
found in [its] explanation of its action.” Texas v. EPA, 829 
F. 3d 405, 419 (CA5 2016). 
In turn, a determination's “scope” and “effect” refer, re-
spectively, to its “formal `area' of operation” and to its “ `op-
erative infuence.' ” Kentucky, 123 F. 4th, at 465; see, e. g., 
American Heritage Dictionary 1164 (1969) (defning “scope” 
as the “area covered by a given activity or subject”); Web-
ster's 724 (defning “effect” as “something that is produced 
by an agent or cause”). An agency's determinations are of 
Page Proof Pending Publication

644 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Opinion of the Court 
“nationwide” scope or effect if they apply “throughout [the] 
entire nation.” Id., at 1505. Taken together, an agency ac-
tion involves determinations of nationwide “scope” if they 
apply throughout the country “as a legal matter (de jure)” 
and determinations of nationwide “effect” if they so apply 
“as a practical one (de facto).” Kentucky, 123 F. 4th, at 465. 
Of course, nearly all agency actions can be said to involve 
justifcations of nationwide reach or consequence. For ex-
ample, most EPA actions presumably rely on EPA's interpre-
tations of its governing statutes. 
The key question, then, is the degree of causality con-
tained in the phrase “based on.” And, the meaning of that 
phrase is context dependent. In many cases, it “indicates a 
but-for causal relationship.” Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. 
Burr, 551 U. S. 47, 63 (2007). But-for causation is a compar-
atively lenient standard, which is met so long as a result 
“would not have occurred in the absence of—that is, but 
for—[a party's] conduct.” Burrage, 571 U. S., at 211 (inter-
nal quotation marks omitted). In other cases, however, 
more is needed. Congress sometimes uses phrases such as 
“based on” to cover only “core” causes amounting to an ac-
tion's “sine qua non” or “ `gravamen.' ” See, e. g., Fry v. Na-
poleon Community Schools, 580 U. S. 154, 167, 169 (2017); 
OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 577 U. S. 27, 35 (2015). 
Section 7607(b)(1) incorporates the more demanding, 
“core” understanding of “based on.” This constraint follows 
from the function of the “nationwide scope or effect” excep-
tion as just that—an exception. Congress, after all, is un-
likely to intend for an exception to swallow the rule. See 
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 
605 U. S. 280, 298–299 (2025). Thus, in this context, but-for 
causation is inadequate: In almost any case, a determination 
of nationwide scope or effect will be at least a but-for cause 
of EPA's action, given that any EPA action is downstream 
of EPA's conclusions as to what its governing statutes permit 
or require. But, Congress made regional Circuit review the 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 645 
Opinion of the Court 
default for locally or regionally applicable actions, so we 
must read the “nationwide scope or effect” exception in a 
way that preserves regional Circuit review as the norm. 
It follows that an EPA action is “based on” a particular 
determination only if that determination “lie[s] at the core of 
the agency action,” so as to form the most important part of 
the agency's reasoning. Texas, 829 F. 3d, at 419. Put more 
concretely, an EPA action is based on a determination of na-
tionwide scope or effect only if a justifcation of nationwide 
breadth is the primary explanation for and driver of EPA's 
action. A determination of nationwide scope or effect does 
not rise to this level if EPA also relied in signifcant part on 
other, “intensely factual” considerations, or if the key driver 
of EPA's action is otherwise debatable. Id., at 421; see also 
id., at 419 (“The default presumption is that petitions for 
review of locally or regionally applicable actions `may only 
be fled in the United States Court of Appeal for the appro-
priate circuit' ”). 
2 
In deciding whether a particular EPA action is “based on 
a determination of nationwide scope or effect,” courts should 
assess EPA's reasoning de novo. This standard follows from 
the structure of the “nationwide scope or effect” exception: 
The exception applies only “ if ” a locally or regionally appli-
cable action is based on a determination of nationwide scope 
or effect “ and if ” EPA, in taking the action, fnds and pub-
lishes that the action has this basis. § 7607(b)(1) (emphasis 
added). In other words, the CAA requires both that EPA 
deem its action to have a qualifying basis and that the action 
in fact have this basis. This dual formulation does not natu-
rally suggest that courts should simply give EPA's fnding 
deference. Cf. Regalado Cuellar v. United States, 553 U. S. 
550, 565 (2008) (fnding it “implausible” to infer that Con-
gress intended a particular meaning, where it used a “more 
complex formulation”). 
Page Proof Pending Publication

646 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Opinion of the Court 
The upshot is that courts must “make an independent as-
sessment of the scope of [EPA's] determinations.” Texas, 
829 F. 3d, at 421. That is, they should parse the reasoning 
offered by EPA in taking an action to decide which determi-
nations primarily drove the action. Courts routinely ana-
lyze flings to identify their substance, and the language of 
the “nationwide scope or effect” exception directs them to 
do the same here. 
In so holding, we do not downplay the importance of EPA's 
role. Because the “nationwide scope or effect” exception 
can apply only when “EPA so fnds and publishes” that it 
does, EPA can decide whether the exception is even poten-
tially relevant. Sierra Club , 47 F. 4th, at 746. And, where 
EPA does invoke the exception, its explanation for doing so 
will at a minimum focus the courts' assessment of the possi-
ble determinations of nationwide scope or effect.
4 Thus, 
EPA's choices will matter, even as courts must assess the 
bases for EPA's actions themselves. 
3 
Applying this framework, we conclude that EPA's denials 
of the small refneries' exemption petitions were based on 
determinations of nationwide scope or effect. We agree 
with EPA's fnding—published in both its April and June de-
nial notices—that its interpretation of the phrase “dispropor-
tionate economic hardship” under § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i) and its 
RIN passthrough theory were determinations of nationwide 
4 This case does not present the question whether, given principles of 
issue preservation, courts can forgo consideration of determinations that 
EPA has not itself identifed as the basis for its action. Cf. SEC v. Chen-
ery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 88 (1943) (confning review of agency action “to a 
judgment upon the validity of the grounds upon which the [agency] itself 
based its action”). But, we expect this issue to be outcome dispositive 
only in rare cases. As a practical matter, an action is unlikely to be based 
on a particular determination where EPA has failed, in promulgating the 
action, to identify that determination as the relevant determination of na-
tionwide scope or effect. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 647 
Opinion of the Court 
scope or effect that formed the core basis for EPA's denials. 
Supra, at 634–635. 
Both conclusions are clear determinations of nationwide 
scope or effect: EPA invoked both its statutory interpreta-
tion and its passthrough theory in justifying its denials, and 
both points apply generically to all refneries, regardless of 
their geographic location. After all, the CAA is a federal 
statute, and § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i) by its terms applies nation-
wide. Likewise, EPA's RIN passthrough theory is a fnding 
about how the national refnery market works. See supra, 
at 634. 
These conclusions also can be deemed the “basis” for 
EPA's denials here. EPA decided, in light of the foregoing 
determinations, that it would presumptively deny all the ex-
emption petitions before it. Supra, at 634. It then consid-
ered other, refnery-specifc considerations only to confrm 
that it had no reason to depart from its presumptive disposi-
tion. Supra, at 634–635. In this posture, EPA's statutory 
interpretation and passthrough theory plainly are the most 
important parts of its reasoning. Or, put another way, 
where EPA relies on determinations of nationwide scope or 
effect to reach a presumptive resolution, those determina-
tions qualify as the primary driver of its decision. EPA's 
confrmatory review of refnery-specifc facts is “[m]erely pe-
ripheral” by comparison. Texas, 829 F. 3d, at 419. 
Accordingly, we agree with EPA that the “nationwide 
scope or effect” exception applies here. The Fifth Circuit 
should have transferred this case. 
B 
We are unpersuaded by the counterarguments raised by 
EPA, respondents, the Fifth Circuit, and the dissent. 
Although we agree with EPA's bottom-line position that 
the “nationwide scope or effect” exception applies, we reject 
its roundabout approach to the word “determination.” EPA 
argues that “[t]he word `determination' ” in § 7607(b)(1) “sug-
Page Proof Pending Publication

648 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Opinion of the Court 
gests a resolution of an unsettled issue,” such that EPA does 
not make “determinations” when it “applies a previously es-
tablished agency rule, policy, or interpretation to new . . . 
circumstances.” Brief for Petitioner 41. We agree with 
EPA that a “determination” here means the “ `settling and 
ending of a controversy,' ” ibid.; supra, at 643, but nothing 
in that term or its use in § 7607(b)(1) suggests that only novel 
conclusions count. Rather, given § 7607(b)(1)'s focus on the 
face of the agency action, “determination” is most naturally 
read to cover any EPA conclusion within the four corners of 
an action. 
Moreover, we do not see how EPA's proposed approach 
can be squared with its requested disposition. If a “deter-
mination” covers only the resolution of an unsettled issue, it 
is not obvious why EPA's June denials contain any determi-
nations: EPA's June notice purported to “appl[y] the ap-
proach . . . adopted in the April” notice. App. to Pet. for 
Cert. 80a. EPA attempts to avoid this diffculty by propos-
ing a holistic assessment of novelty that considers factors 
such as “whether EPA announced the rule or policy at 
roughly the same time as the challenged agency action it-
self.” Brief for Petitioner 41. But, we do not see how this 
amorphous test follows even from EPA's view.
5 
Respondents argue that the word “determination” in 
§ 7607(b)(1) is a term of art, wherein an agency action can 
trigger the “nationwide scope or effect” exception only if it 
is undertaken based on a CAA provision that “textually di-
rect[s] EPA to make a `determination' for the entire nation.” 
Brief for Small Refnery Respondents 32 (emphasis deleted). 
But, “determination” is “hardly a rarely used word,” and 
nothing in the CAA's context suggests that Congress meant 
5 EPA also contends that § 7607(b)(1)'s “based on” language speaks in 
terms of but-for causation and that courts should assess the basis for 
EPA's actions deferentially, through arbitrary-and-capricious review. For 
the reasons already explained, we reject those contentions. Supra, at 
644–645. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 649 
Opinion of the Court 
for its use in § 7607(b)(1) to reach only CAA provisions that 
happen to use some variant of that word. Bruesewitz v. 
Wyeth LLC , 562 U. S. 223, 235 (2011). Such a limitation 
would at best lead to arbitrary outcomes, as Congress did 
not act in a standardized way when using “determination” 
as opposed to other words. Compare § 7410(k)(3) (not 
speaking in terms of “determinations”) with § 7410(k)(6) (re-
quiring a “determination” when EPA “[c]orrect[s]” its ac-
tions under § 7410(k)(3)). At worst, respondents' approach 
would render the “nationwide scope or effect” exception 
meaningless: Respondents have conceded that their term-of-
art view may render the exception “a null set, or close to a 
null set.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 103–104. But, Congress would 
not have gone to the trouble of creating a superfuous excep-
tion, so we will not “force [a] term-of-art defnitio[n]” where 
it “plainly do[es] not ft.” Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U. S. 243, 
282 (2006) (Scalia, J., dissenting). 
The dissent would similarly limit the “nationwide scope or 
effect” exception to reach only statutorily enumerated deter-
minations, but its arguments fare no better. The dissent 
highlights that various CAA substantive provisions require 
EPA to make particular “determinations” before taking an 
action. Post, at 653–655, 659–660 (opinion of Gorsuch, J.). 
But, it does not follow that Congress meant to encompass only 
statutorily enumerated determinations when it spoke gener-
ally in the exception of actions “based on a determination of 
nationwide scope or effect.” § 7607(b)(1) (emphasis added). 
And, although some statutes “ `distinguis[h] between “consid-
erations” that inform [a] “determination” and the “determina-
tion” itself,' ” post, at 659–660 (quoting Commissioner v. 
Zuch, 605 U. S. 422, 429 (2025); alterations in original), stat-
utes like the one in Zuch use “determination” to refer to an 
agency's ultimate decision, see id., at 428–429. In asking 
whether a determination supplies the basis for an EPA ac-
tion, § 7607(b)(1) uses the term in a different sense. Like-
wise, the dissent's concern that our test could be diffcult for 
Page Proof Pending Publication

650 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Gorsuch, J., dissenting 
“lower courts and lawyers to apply” is not a problem of our 
creation. Post, at 660. Insofar as the reticulated venue 
framework that Congress enacted creates diffculty for 
courts or litigants, “it is a problem for Congress, not one 
that federal courts can fx.” Lewis v. Chicago, 560 U. S. 205, 
217 (2010). 
Finally, we are unpersuaded by respondents' argument, 
accepted by the Fifth Circuit, that the “nationwide scope or 
effect” exception is inapplicable in light of EPA's consider-
ation of refnery-specifc facts. That exception requires that 
an EPA action be “based on” a determination of nationwide 
scope or effect, in contrast to another part of § 7607(b)(1) 
where Congress used the phrase “based solely on.” Accord-
ingly, EPA's consideration of local facts does not preclude its 
invocation of the exception, either generally or here. So 
long as a determination of nationwide scope or effect served 
as the primary driver of EPA's action, other, more “periph-
eral” determinations “are not relevant” for venue purposes. 
Texas, 829 F. 3d, at 419. 
* * * 
We agree with the Fifth Circuit that EPA's actions here 
are only locally or regionally applicable, although we clarify 
that the relevant actions are EPA's individual denials of the 
small refneries' exemption petitions. But, under a proper 
understanding of § 7607(b)(1), the “nationwide scope or ef-
fect” exception applies, and the case belongs in the D. C. 
Circuit. The Fifth Circuit therefore erred in denying EPA's 
request to transfer. The judgment of the Court of Appeals 
is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings 
consistent with this opinion. 
It is so ordered. 
Justice Gorsuch, with whom The Chief Justice joins, 
dissenting. 
Though I would reach a different judgment, the Court and 
I travel much of the way together. This case involves six 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 651 
Gorsuch, J., dissenting 
small refneries. Each petitioned the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency for a hardship exemption from the Clean Air 
Act's renewable fuel mandates. The agency denied all six 
refneries' petitions. The question we face does not concern 
the merits of what EPA did, only where the small refneries' 
lawsuit challenging the agency's actions should be heard. 
The Act instructs that litigation over “nationally applicable” 
EPA “actions” belongs in the D. C. Circuit, while disputes 
over “locally or regionally applicable” agency “actions” gen-
erally belong in a regional circuit. 42 U. S. C. § 7607(b)(1). 
In Parts I and II of its opinion, the Court concludes that 
these rules presumptively route the dispute before us to a 
regional circuit because EPA's decision to deny an individual 
refnery's petition for a hardship exemption is a “locally or 
regionally applicable” action. With all that, I agree. 
But then, in Part III of its opinion, the Court pivots. 
Even when a case challenges only a “locally or regionally 
applicable” action, the Court observes, the Act routes it to 
the D. C. Circuit if EPA's action “is based on a determination 
of nationwide scope or effect.” Applying a new multistep 
test it announces, the Court concludes that EPA's actions at 
issue here were based on such a determination. As a result, 
the Court holds, the right venue for this case turns out to be 
the D. C. Circuit after all. 
In my view, that pivot is a mistake. The Clean Air Act's 
venue provision works in harmony with its substantive pro-
visions. Throughout, those substantive provisions direct 
EPA to make certain “determinations” before it may take 
certain “actions.” When it comes to acting on a small re-
fnery's hardship petition, nothing in the Act's substantive 
provisions calls on EPA to make a “determination of nation-
wide scope or effect.” Instead, the Act requires the agency 
to evaluate only whether a particular small refnery seeking 
an exemption would suffer a hardship without one. Accord-
ingly, the Act's venue provision routes this dispute to a re-
gional circuit, just as the Fifth Circuit recognized below. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

652 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Gorsuch, J., dissenting 
The Court's new and reticulated test for assessing venue dis-
putes under the Act strikes me as both mistaken and likely 
to render simple venue questions unnecessarily diffcult and 
expensive to resolve. 
I 
Start with how I would analyze this case. The Clean Air 
Act's venue provision, found in 42 U. S. C. § 7607(b)(1), sup-
plies three basic rules. First, challenges to “nationally ap-
plicable” agency “action[s]” must be brought in the D. C. Cir-
cuit. Second, challenges to “locally or regionally” applicable 
agency “action[s]” must be fled in the appropriate regional 
circuit. Third, as an exception to the second rule, challenges 
to locally or regionally applicable agency actions belong in 
the D. C. Circuit if they are “based on a determination of 
nationwide scope or effect.” 
1 The central question this case 
poses concerns the relationship between the second and third 
rules: When is a locally or regionally applicable “action” 
under the Clean Air Act “based on a determination of nation-
wide scope or effect”? 
As I see it, the Act itself supplies the answer. Working in 
concert with the Act's venue provision, the Act's substantive 
provisions tell us what kinds of “actions” the agency is law-
fully authorized to take and when those actions may be based 
on “determinations of nationwide scope or effect.” Here, 
the relevant substantive provisions permit EPA to take a 
specifc “action”—namely, the granting or denying of a small 
refnery's hardship petition. But, by their terms, those pro-
visions do not call for a nationwide “determination” when 
the agency acts. Instead, the only decisions EPA must 
make are refnery-specifc ones. Accordingly, the dispute 
before us belongs in an appropriate regional circuit. 
1 To implicate this exception, EPA must also certify its belief that its 
action “is based on . . . a determination” of nationwide scope or effect. 
§ 7607(b)(1). But that requirement is irrelevant in this case because all 
agree that EPA satisfed it, so I will not address it further. Ante, at 642. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 653 
Gorsuch, J., dissenting 
A 
To appreciate how the Act's substantive and venue provi-
sions interact, begin with a look at the substantive provi-
sions addressing the renewable fuel standards that lie at the 
heart of this case. 
As a rule, § 7545(o)(2) requires the Nation's fuel supply to 
include ethanol or other renewable fuels in fxed amounts 
that increase over time. See HollyFrontier Cheyenne Re-
fning, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Assn., 594 U. S. 382, 385– 
386 (2021). But the Act also permits EPA to take various 
actions inconsistent with that general rule if it makes certain 
determinations. So, for example, § 7545(o)(7)(A)(i) allows 
EPA to waive some renewable fuel mandates “based on a 
determination” that enforcing them “would severely harm 
the economy or environment of a State, a region, or the 
United States.” Similarly, EPA may waive renewable fuel 
requirements “based on a determination . . . that there is 
an inadequate domestic [fuel] supply.” § 7545(o)(7)(A)(ii). 
Similarly again, §§ 7545(c)(4)(C)(ii) and (iii) permit EPA to 
waive other standards if it “determines that . . . extreme and 
unusual . . . circumstances exist in a State or region.” Be-
yond those examples, § 7545 discusses various other actions 
the agency may take after making various other determina-
tions. (In all, § 7545 uses the word “determination” or one 
of its cognates more than 70 times.) 
Now apply these observations about § 7545's substantive 
provisions to the Act's venue provision. If, for example, 
EPA waives a renewable fuel standard for a single State 
under § 7545(o)(7)(A)(i) “based on a determination” that “im-
plement[ing]” those standards “would severely harm the 
economy . . . of a State,” § 7607(b)(1) would route disputes 
over that action to the appropriate regional circuit. After 
all, a determination about the economy of a particular State 
is hardly one of “nationwide scope or effect.” § 7607(b)(1). 
On the other hand, if EPA issues such a waiver based on a 
“determination” that implementing the renewable fuel stand-
Page Proof Pending Publication

654 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Gorsuch, J., dissenting 
ard in question “would severely harm the economy [of] the 
United States,” § 7607(b)(1) would channel any litigation over 
that action to the D. C. Circuit. 
The substantive provisions at issue in today's companion 
case illustrate the same point. That litigation revolves 
around federal air quality standards and the State Imple-
mentation Plans (SIPs) States must prepare to meet them. 
See Oklahoma v. EPA, 605 U. S. 609, 615 (2025). Section 
7410 sets forth the general rules about what SIPs must con-
tain and how EPA must go about assessing them. But that 
section also authorizes EPA to take certain actions inconsist-
ent with those rules after making certain determinations. 
(For its part, § 7410 uses “determination” or one of its cog-
nates more than 20 times.) So, for example, § 7410(b) per-
mits EPA to “extend the period for [the] submission of any” 
SIP for up to 18 months “wherever [the EPA Administrator] 
determines necessary.” And § 7410(g) allows EPA to “dis-
approv[e]” a Governor's decision to suspend a SIP component 
if the agency “determines” that his decision “does not meet” 
certain statutory criteria (including whether the suspen-
sion is necessary “to prevent substantial increases in 
unemployment”). 
Now consider where the Act's venue provision sends dis-
putes about EPA actions under these substantive provisions. 
Suppose EPA determines that it is “necessary” to extend 
the submission deadline for SIPs across the country, and the 
agency acts accordingly pursuant to § 7410(b). In those cir-
cumstances, an argument might be made that § 7607(b)(1) 
routes disputes about that action to the D. C. Circuit. Cf. 
Kentucky v. EPA, 123 F. 4th 447, 466 (CA6 2024). But if 
EPA acts pursuant to § 7410(g) to countermand a Governor's 
decision to suspend a SIP component based on a determina-
tion that his decision defes the Act's terms, § 7607(b)(1) 
would likely send any dispute over that action to a regional 
circuit. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 655 
Gorsuch, J., dissenting 
B 
With that much in hand, return to the question whether 
the Act's venue provision directs this lawsuit to a regional 
circuit or the D. C. Circuit. 
As we have seen, § 7545 lays out the Act's substantive re-
newable fuel standards and generally requires refneries to 
mix a certain (and regularly increasing) amount of renewable 
fuels into the transportation fuel they produce. See Part I– 
A, supra; HollyFrontier , 594 U. S., at 385–386. But § 7545 
also allows EPA to exempt small refneries from these man-
dates “for the reason of disproportionate economic hardship.” 
§ 7545(o)(9)(B)(i). Seeking to take advantage of this provi-
sion, the six small refneries before us individually petitioned 
EPA for hardship exemptions. See 86 F. 4th 1121, 1129– 
1130 (CA5 2023). In the end, the agency denied each refn-
ery's request. App. to Pet. for Cert. 251a–252a; id., at 305a– 
310a. Now, the small refneries seek to challenge EPA's 
actions in court. That challenge belongs in a regional circuit 
because nothing in the Act's relevant substantive provisions 
calls for EPA to act on a determination of nationwide scope 
or effect. 
Just walk through the substantive provisions addressing 
small refneries one by one. To account for the fact that 
small refneries may have more diffculty meeting evolving 
renewable fuel mandates than their larger rivals, Congress 
in 2005 granted them a blanket exemption until 2011. See 
§ 7545(o)(9)(A); HollyFrontier , 594 U. S., at 386–387. After 
that, Congress directed EPA to extend a small refnery's ex-
emption “for a period of not less than 2 additional years” if 
the “Secretary of Energy determines” that the refnery in 
question “would be subject to a disproportionate economic 
hardship if required to comply” with the Act's renewable fuel 
mandates. § 7545(o)(9)(A)(ii)(II). Even beyond that, Con-
gress permitted a small refnery to petition “at any time” for 
“an extension” of its “exemption . . . for the reason of 
Page Proof Pending Publication

656 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Gorsuch, J., dissenting 
disproportionate economic hardship.” § 7545( o)(9)(B)(i). 
When it comes to deciding whether to grant or deny such a 
petition, the Act directs EPA to “consul[t] with the Secretary 
of Energy,” consider his “determin[ation]” whether “a” par-
ticular “small refnery” would suffer “disproportionate eco-
nomic hardship if required to comply,” and consider “other 
economic factors.” §§ 7545( o)(9)(A)(ii), (B)(ii). Nowhere 
does the Act call for a determination of nationwide scope or 
effect. To the contrary, after the blanket exemption for 
small refneries expired in 2011, all agency actions and deter-
minations became refnery-specifc ones. 
Any doubt on that score is resolved by comparing these 
substantive provisions with others we have encountered. 
Section 7545(o)(7)(A), remember, allows EPA to waive cer-
tain renewable fuel standards “based on a determination . . . 
that implementation of the requirement would severely harm 
the economy or environment of . . . the United States,” or 
“based on a determination . . . that there is an inadequate 
domestic [fuel] supply.” As that provision illustrates, when 
it wished to do so, Congress knew how to say that EPA may 
take a certain action based on a determination of nationwide 
scope or effect. That we have nothing like that here is a 
telling sign that the small-refnery provisions work differ-
ently and do not task EPA with taking any nationally appli-
cable action or making any determination of nationwide 
scope or effect. See Feliciano v. Department of Transpor-
tation, 605 U. S. –––, ––– (2025). 
EPA's own statements convey the same message. The 
agency represents that it “ `consider[s] each petition on the 
merits' ” and examines “ `individual refnery information' ” 
when passing on individual hardship petitions. 86 F. 4th, at 
1133. EPA represents, too, that it “determined that none of 
the petitioning small refneries” merited a hardship exemp-
tion only after completing “a thorough evaluation of the data 
and information provided” by each small refnery. Brief for 
Petitioner 10; App. to Pet. for Cert. 94a–95a. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 657 
Gorsuch, J., dissenting 
To be sure, EPA also highlights two features of its adminis-
trative proceedings that, it says, prove the agency took a “na-
tionally applicable action,” or at least made a “determination 
of nationwide scope or effect.” For one, EPA emphasizes 
that it bundled the petitions from the six small refneries before 
us together with a host of other similar petitions and dis-
patched them all in a pair of administrative decisions. See 
Brief for Petitioner 28; 86 F. 4th, at 1129–1130. For another, 
the agency stresses that, in evaluating each refnery's petition, 
it relied on a single interpretation of the statutory phrase “ `dis-
proportionate economic hardship' ” and a single economic 
model (the agency's “RIN passthrough theory”). Ante, at 634. 
The Court correctly holds that none of this transforms 
EPA's challenged actions into “nationally applicable” actions. 
Ante, at 640. Yes, the agency may choose to bundle peti-
tions together for administrative convenience. And, yes, the 
agency may apply similar reasoning when faced with similar 
petitions. But, as the Court recognizes, the only “action” 
the Act's substantive provisions call on EPA to take is to 
grant or deny an individual hardship petition—and that is a 
locally applicable action, not a national one. Ibid. 
As I see it, this same insight defeats EPA's suggestion that 
its actions were “based on a determination of nationwide 
scope or effect.” § 7607(b)(1). As a matter of administra-
tive convenience, the agency may choose to address a num-
ber of petitions collectively rather than separately. And the 
agency of course may (and, to avoid acting arbitrarily and 
capriciously, generally must) apply consistent reasoning to 
like petitions. But the Act's venue provision does not route 
cases to one circuit or another based on how EPA packages 
them or the quality or nature of its reasoning. Instead, the 
Act's venue provision asks whether the agency based its ac-
tion on a determination of nationwide scope or effect. And, 
as the Act's substantive provisions make clear, EPA does no 
such thing when it passes on an individual small refnery's 
hardship petition. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

658 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Gorsuch, J., dissenting 
II 
Turn now to how the Court resolves this case. As we 
have seen, the Court frst holds that EPA's decision whether 
to grant or deny an individual small refnery's hardship peti-
tion is a locally or regionally applicable “action.” See Part 
II, ante. Accordingly, the Court starts with the (correct) 
presumption that the suit before us belongs in a regional 
circuit. Ibid. But then, the Court reverses course. While 
EPA's challenged actions are local or regional ones, the 
Court concludes, this case belongs in the D. C. Circuit be-
cause the agency's actions were “based on a determination 
of nationwide scope or effect.” See Part III, ante. That 
portion of the Court's opinion strikes me as both mistaken 
and likely to cause confusion about where Clean Air Act dis-
putes should be heard. 
To understand why, consider how the Court proceeds. 
Pursuing what it calls an “ordinary-meaning” approach, the 
Court observes that the word “determination” often refers 
to the “ `settling and ending of a controversy.' ” Ante, at 643 
(quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 616 
(1976)). Extrapolating from that dictionary defnition, the 
Court reasons that “ any EPA conclusion within the four 
corners of an action” qualifes as a “determination.” Ante, 
at 648 (emphasis added). 
But, the Court continues, whether an action is “ `based 
on' ” a conclusion of nationwide scope or effect depends on a 
“degree of causality.” Ante, at 644. Nor will just any 
degree of causality do. Proving that some nationwide con-
clusion (or now, the Court adds, “justifcation” or “reason-
ing”) is the “but-for” cause of the agency's action will not 
suffce. Ante, at 644–645. Instead, EPA must establish 
that some nationwide conclusion (or justifcation or reason-
ing) qualifes as the “gravamen” or “core” or “driver” of its 
action. Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). And 
when EPA's actions rely “in signifcant part on . . . `intensely 
factual' considerations” or when “the key driver of EPA's 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 659 
Gorsuch, J., dissenting 
action is otherwise debatable,” that standard will not be sat-
isfed. Ante, at 645. 
Applying all those ideas to this case, the Court holds that 
all of EPA's challenged actions were based on a determina-
tion of nationwide scope or effect. That is so, the Court 
says, because EPA's actions (its decisions to deny the small 
refneries' petitions) rested at their “core” on a common (or 
“nationwide”) understanding of the statutory phrase “ `dis-
proportionate economic hardship' ” and a common (or “na-
tionwide”) economic model. Ante, at 646–647 (quoting 
§ 7545(o)(9) (B)(i)). To be sure, the Court acknowledges, the 
agency also undertook a “review of refnery-specifc facts.” 
Ante, at 647. But on the Court's account, those “refnery-
specifc facts” mattered less to the outcomes here than EPA's 
statutory interpretation and its economic model. Ibid. 
I fnd that chain of reasoning unpersuasive for a few rea-
sons. For one thing, it seems to me pretty far afeld from 
the statutory text. As we have seen, the Clean Air Act's 
venue provision speaks of actions and determinations, and 
the Act's substantive provisions do too. And when a sub-
stantive provision calls for either a nationally applicable “ac-
tion” or a “determination” of nationwide scope or effect, it 
says so. To decide where a case belongs, then, no special 
judicially devised test is required. Instead, lawyers and 
judges need only open the statute books, fnd the relevant 
substantive provision, and follow its lead. As we have seen, 
the Court takes just this approach when addressing the 
meaning of the term “action” in the Act's venue provision. 
There, it concludes EPA took no nationally applicable “ac-
tion” because the Act's substantive provisions “pe[g]” an ac-
tion to a decision to grant or deny an individual hardship peti-
tion. Ante, at 639–640; see Part I–B, supra. On my view, we 
should employ that same statute-driven approach to the 
meaning of “a determination of nationwide scope or effect.” 
For another thing, the Court's test confates a determina-
tion with the reasons that inform it. Statutes often “distin-
Page Proof Pending Publication

660 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Gorsuch, J., dissenting 
guis[h] between `considerations' that inform [a] `determina-
tion' and the `determination' itself.” Commissioner v. 
Zuch, 605 U. S. 422, 429 (2025) (alteration omitted). The 
Clean Air Act is no different. It authorizes EPA to take 
certain actions (like waiving renewable fuel mandates or dis-
approving a single Governor's suspension of a SIP compo-
nent). The Act authorizes those actions if certain determi-
nations are made (like a determination that enforcing the 
renewable fuel mandates would severely harm the national 
economy or a determination that a Governor's partial SIP 
suspension doesn't satisfy certain criteria). And to support 
its determinations, the agency may offer any number of rea-
sons. To avoid accusations of arbitrary and capricious deci-
sionmaking, too, the agency will usually employ consistent 
reasoning in like cases. See, e. g., Encino Motorcars, LLC 
v. Navarro, 579 U. S. 211, 222 (2016). But none of that 
means we should confate the determinations EPA must 
make under the Act with the reasons the agency offers to 
support them. 
For another thing still, I worry that the Court's test will 
prove tough for lower courts and lawyers to apply in prac-
tice. Having confated a “determination” with the agency's 
underlying reasoning, the Court must fnd some way to go 
about sorting and weighing all the reasons EPA may ad-
vance. But just consider what its approach entails. First, 
lawyers and judges must consult the full scope of the 
agency's reasoning (in this case, reasoning that runs over 280 
pages). See App. to Pet. for Cert. 44a–330a. Next, lawyers 
and judges must “parse” out which aspects of that reasoning 
are particular to a locality or region and which are national 
in scope or effect. Ante, at 646. Finally, lawyers and 
judges must weigh those two sets of reasons against each 
other and decide which set was the true “driver” of the 
agency's decision and which was more “peripheral” to it. 
Ante, at 647 (internal quotation marks omitted). 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 661 
Gorsuch, J., dissenting 
“ `[L]itigation over whether the case is in the right court 
is essentially a waste of time and resources.' ” Navarro 
Savings Assn. v. Lee, 446 U. S. 458, 464, n. 13 (1980). When 
it comes to the simple preliminary question where a case 
should be fled, the rules of the road should be “clear and 
easy to apply.” Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of 
Chicago, 583 U. S. 17, 25 (2017); see Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 
559 U. S. 77, 94–95 (2010). The test the Court announces 
today can claim neither of those virtues. For the lawyers 
and judges tasked with applying it, I can only wish them 
luck. 
III 
To get a sense of the challenges the Court's test poses for 
future litigants and lower courts, compare this case to its 
companion. See Oklahoma v. EPA, 605 U. S. 609 (2025). 
As we have seen, that dispute involves SIPs, plans States 
must submit to EPA outlining how they intend to comply 
with national air quality standards. See Part I–A, supra; 
§ 7410. Among other things, a State's SIP must address the 
Act's “Good Neighbor Provision.” Ohio v. EPA, 603 U. S. 
279, 283–284 (2024). Because “air currents can carry pollu-
tion across state borders,” id., at 283, that provision requires 
each SIP to contain “adequate” measures to prevent in-state 
“emissions activity” from interfering with other States' abil-
ity to satisfy federal air quality standards, § 7410(a)(2)(D). 
In a single rule, EPA rejected 21 SIPs—including Utah's and 
Oklahoma's—because, in the agency's view, none satisfed the 
Act's Good Neighbor provision. Oklahoma, 605 U. S., at 616 
(citing 88 Fed. Reg. 9336 (2023)). Now, Oklahoma, Utah, and 
certain industry groups seek to challenge EPA's actions in 
court, and they argue that their litigation belongs in a re-
gional circuit. Oklahoma, 605 U. S., at 617. 
EPA responds that the SIPs case is, in every way that 
matters, like the small refneries' case and thus belongs in 
the D. C. Circuit too. After all, the agency points out, it 
Page Proof Pending Publication

662 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Gorsuch, J., dissenting 
employed a common statutory interpretation and a common 
methodology to assess each State's proposed SIP—just as it 
did when considering the small refneries' petitions. If the 
one case belongs in the D. C. Circuit, EPA argues, so must 
the other. See Brief for Federal Respondents in No. 23– 
1067 etc., pp. 30, 34–36; Tr. of Oral Arg. in Oklahoma v. EPA, 
O. T. 2024, No. 23–1067 etc., pp. 39, 47. 
Along those lines, EPA observes that, in assessing each 
SIP, it asked whether the state plan before it would contrib-
ute more than “1% of the permissible ozone level to a down-
wind State.” Oklahoma, 605 U. S., at 624–625; Brief for 
Federal Respondents in No. 23–1067 etc., at 9, 35. In prac-
tice, EPA argues, that 1% threshold proved critical. SIPs 
that “fell under the 1 percent de minimis threshold” were 
“approved on [that] ground.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 23– 
1067 etc., at 38–39. Meanwhile, all (or nearly all) the SIPs 
that exceeded the 1% threshold—including Oklahoma's and 
Utah's—were rejected. See Brief for Federal Respondents 
in No. 23–1067 etc., at 7; Brief for State of New York et al. 
as Amici Curiae in No. 23–1067 etc., pp. 24–25, n. 20. Ac-
cordingly, the agency argues, even if it took a local or re-
gional “action” with respect to each SIP, nationwide deter-
minations proved “essential to EPA's reasoning in 
disapproving the state plans.” Brief for Federal Respond-
ents in No. 23–1067 etc., at 37. 
The Court disagrees. As it must under the test it an-
nounces, the Court begins by consulting all the various rea-
sons EPA offered (some 60-plus pages of them appear in the 
Federal Register). Oklahoma, 605 U. S., at 622–625.
2 In 
doing so, the Court acknowledges that EPA used a common 
(or nationwide) statutory interpretation and a common (or 
nationwide) methodology when assessing all of the SIPs. 
See id., at 621. The Court recognizes, too, that the 1% 
2 See 88 Fed. Reg. 9336 (omnibus rule); 87 Fed. Reg. 31470 (2022) (Air 
Plan Disapproval; Utah); id., at 9798 (Air Plan Disapproval; Arkansas, 
Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas). 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 663 
Gorsuch, J., dissenting 
threshold played a signifcant role in separating the SIPs 
EPA approved from those it rejected. See id., at 624–625. 
Still, when it comes to weighing the role that EPA's common 
(or nationwide) justifcations played, the Court concludes, 
they were not the “primary drivers” of the agency's chal-
lenged actions. Id., at 624. Instead, “factual determina-
tions particular to the State at issue” predominated. Id., 
at 622 (internal quotation marks omitted). Relying on that 
assessment, the Court holds that Oklahoma's and Utah's law-
suit challenging EPA's rejection of their SIPs belongs in a 
regional circuit. Id., at 625. 
Maybe that's right. But I can certainly imagine arriving 
at the opposite outcome under the Court's test. After all, 
EPA used a common statutory interpretation and a common 
methodology when assessing all of the SIPs, proceeding 
much as it did when evaluating the small refneries' hardship 
petitions. In both cases, too, the agency factored in certain 
local considerations, like individual “Stat[e] circumstances” 
in the SIPs case, id., at 623, and individualized “data and 
information” in the small refneries' case, App. to Pet. for 
Cert. 94a–95a. Of course, the Court thinks EPA leaned 
more heavily on individualized reasons in the SIPs case, and 
more heavily on common ones in the small refneries' case. 
Oklahoma, 605 U. S., at 623–624. But without any objective 
standard for weighing which predominates, there seems to 
me ample room for good-faith disagreement between liti-
gants and among lower courts. And it is just that kind of 
ambiguity that promises protracted and expensive venue liti-
gation going forward. 
To avoid that problem, I would resolve the SIPs case the 
same way I would resolve the small refneries' case: by look-
ing to the Act itself. Section 7410(k)(3) requires EPA to ap-
prove or disapprove SIPs and, in passing on them, to assess 
whether each individual State has or has not complied with 
its obligations under federal law. See id., at 615. Nowhere 
does that substantive provision call for a nationally applica-
Page Proof Pending Publication

664 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. 
Gorsuch, J., dissenting 
ble action or task EPA with making a determination of na-
tionwide scope or effect. And no more is needed to know 
that, under the Act's venue provision, the SIPs dispute be-
fore us belongs in a regional circuit. Id., at 626 (Gorsuch, 
J., concurring in judgment). 
* 
At the end of the day, venue rules are like traffc laws. 
They simply tell litigants where to go, and they should be 
easy to follow. As I read it, the Clean Air Act provides a 
clear rule for cases like this one. Applying that rule here, 
I would direct the parties to the appropriate regional circuit. 
The Court doing otherwise, I respectfully dissent. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
Reporter’s Note 
The attached opinion has been revised to refect the usual publication 
and citation style of the United States Reports. The revised pagination 
makes available the offcial United States Reports citation in advance of 
publication. The syllabus has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions 
for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of 
the Court. A list of counsel who argued or fled briefs in this case, and 
who were members of the bar of this Court at the time this case was 
argued, has been inserted following the syllabus. Other revisions may 
include adjustments to formatting, captions, citation form, and any errant 
punctuation. The following additional edits were made: 
None

Retrieval chunks

• #1

  PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 605 U. S. Part 2 Pages 627–664 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 18, 2025 REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions Page Proof Pending Publication NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to noti…

• #2

  EPA's denials were based on two principal determinations: frst, its in- terpretation that “disproportionate economic hardship” covers only hardship directly caused by renewable fuel program compliance; and second, its economic theory that Renewable Identifcation Number (RIN) costs are fully passed through to consu…

• #3

  CAA allows “[a] small refnery” to “petition [EPA] for an extension of [its] exemption” and requires EPA to “act on any petition submitted,” each EPA denial of a refnery's exemption petition constitutes its own “action” for venue purposes. Pp. 636–638. (2) An action is “nationally applicable” if it applies “[o]n it…

• #4

  on determinations of nationwide scope or effect. EPA's interpretation of “disproportionate economic hardship” under § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i) and its RIN passthrough theory are clear determinations of nationwide scope or effect that apply generically to all refneries regardless of geographic location. These determination…

• #5

  *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for the State of New York et al. by Letitia James, Attorney General of New York, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Judith N. Vale, Deputy Solicitor General, Elizabeth A. Brody , Assistant Solicitor General, and Morgan A. Costello and Claiborne E. Walthall, A…

• #6

  Section 7607(b)(1)—the CAA's venue provision—governs where petitioners should fle challenges to EPA actions under that statute. As originally enacted, § 7607(b)(1) dic- tated venue only for an enumerated subset of EPA actions. Certain actions with a national reach, such as “any national primary or secondary ambie…

• #7

  newable Fuels Assn., 594 U. S. 382, 385 (2021). Each cov- ered refnery's precise obligation turns on its proportional share of various “nationwide volume mandates.” Id., at 385–386; see §§ 7545(o)(2)(A)(i), (o)(3); 40 CFR § 80.1407(a) (2024). Covered refneries demonstrate compliance through a sys- tem of Renewab…

• #8

  EPA offered its interpretation of “disproportionate economic Page Proof Pending Publication 634 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. Opinion of the Court hardship,” the CAA's threshold for an exemption petition to be granted. § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i). On EPA's view, that phrase covers only hardship that is caus…

• #9

  187a–188a, 329a. Notwithstanding EPA's position, small refneries chal- lenged these denials in a host of regional Circuits. Agree- ing with EPA that the litigation belonged in the D. C. Cir- cuit, most of these Circuits either dismissed the petitions for improper venue or transferred them to the D. C. Circuit. 1…

• #10

  scope or effect in that they “are applicable to all small refn- eries no matter the location or market in which they oper- ate.” Id., at 1145. We granted certiorari to clarify where venue properly lies. 604 U. S. 997 (2024). II Section 7607(b)(1) creates a two-step inquiry for determin- ing venue. At the frst st…

• #11

  we “interpret a `general or collective term' . . . in light of any `common attribute[s]' shared by” statutory examples of that term. Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U. S. 450, 458 (2022). The enumerated “actions” in § 7607(b)(1) make clear that this provision “treats each activity the Clean Air Act allows t…

• #12

  The statutory context supplied by § 7607(b)(1)'s enumer- ated examples confrms the correctness of this ordinary- meaning approach. The actions that § 7607(b)(1) identifes as “nationally applicable” facially apply nationwide. For ex- ample, courts have identifed a NAAQS—a “ `national pri- mary or secondary ambient…

• #13

  whole country” to be nationally applicable, Kentucky v. EPA, 123 F. 4th 447, 460 (CA6 2024), then actions could apply to nearly the entire country yet still be locally or regionally applicable, see, e. g., § 7545(i)(4). But, if an action that formally applies to only a subset of the country can be nationally appli…

• #14

  gress meant to give a party unfettered control over venue, we will not read a venue provision to confer such broad dis- cretion. Cf. Deal v. United States, 508 U. S. 129, 133–134 Page Proof Pending Publication Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 641 Opinion of the Court (1993) (disfavoring a reading that would “give a…

• #15

  importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things” “unless the context indicates otherwise”). Finally, we fnd no merit in the intervenors' arguments for why the denial of an individual refnery's exemption petition should still be considered nationally applicable. According to the int…

• #16

  we hold that this case is one in which the “nationwide scope or effect” exception applies. 1 To understand the phrase “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect,” we again turn to ordinary mean- ing. Burrage, 571 U. S., at 210. In particular, we look to the plain meaning of this phrase's component w…

• #17

  atively lenient standard, which is met so long as a result “would not have occurred in the absence of—that is, but for—[a party's] conduct.” Burrage, 571 U. S., at 211 (inter- nal quotation marks omitted). In other cases, however, more is needed. Congress sometimes uses phrases such as “based on” to cover only “c…

• #18

  a determination of nationwide scope or effect,” courts should assess EPA's reasoning de novo. This standard follows from the structure of the “nationwide scope or effect” exception: The exception applies only “ if ” a locally or regionally appli- cable action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or eff…

• #19

  issue preservation, courts can forgo consideration of determinations that EPA has not itself identifed as the basis for its action. Cf. SEC v. Chen- ery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 88 (1943) (confning review of agency action “to a judgment upon the validity of the grounds upon which the [agency] itself based its action”)…

• #20

  its roundabout approach to the word “determination.” EPA argues that “[t]he word `determination' ” in § 7607(b)(1) “sug- Page Proof Pending Publication 648 EP A v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C. Opinion of the Court gests a resolution of an unsettled issue,” such that EPA does not make “determinations” when…

• #21

  happen to use some variant of that word. Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC , 562 U. S. 223, 235 (2011). Such a limitation would at best lead to arbitrary outcomes, as Congress did not act in a standardized way when using “determination” as opposed to other words. Compare § 7410(k)(3) (not speaking in terms of “determinatio…

• #22

  that federal courts can fx.” Lewis v. Chicago, 560 U. S. 205, 217 (2010). Finally, we are unpersuaded by respondents' argument, accepted by the Fifth Circuit, that the “nationwide scope or effect” exception is inapplicable in light of EPA's consider- ation of refnery-specifc facts. That exception requires that a…

• #23

  refnery's petition for a hardship exemption is a “locally or regionally applicable” action. With all that, I agree. But then, in Part III of its opinion, the Court pivots. Even when a case challenges only a “locally or regionally applicable” action, the Court observes, the Act routes it to the D. C. Circuit if EP…

• #24

  As I see it, the Act itself supplies the answer. Working in concert with the Act's venue provision, the Act's substantive provisions tell us what kinds of “actions” the agency is law- fully authorized to take and when those actions may be based on “determinations of nationwide scope or effect.” Here, the relevant…

• #25

  Now apply these observations about § 7545's substantive provisions to the Act's venue provision. If, for example, EPA waives a renewable fuel standard for a single State under § 7545(o)(7)(A)(i) “based on a determination” that “im- plement[ing]” those standards “would severely harm the economy . . . of a State,” …

• #26

  EPA acts pursuant to § 7410(g) to countermand a Governor's decision to suspend a SIP component based on a determina- tion that his decision defes the Act's terms, § 7607(b)(1) would likely send any dispute over that action to a regional circuit. Page Proof Pending Publication Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 655 G…

• #27

  When it comes to deciding whether to grant or deny such a petition, the Act directs EPA to “consul[t] with the Secretary of Energy,” consider his “determin[ation]” whether “a” par- ticular “small refnery” would suffer “disproportionate eco- nomic hardship if required to comply,” and consider “other economic facto…

• #28

  us together with a host of other similar petitions and dis- patched them all in a pair of administrative decisions. See Brief for Petitioner 28; 86 F. 4th, at 1129–1130. For another, the agency stresses that, in evaluating each refnery's petition, it relied on a single interpretation of the statutory phrase “ `dis…

• #29

  cause the agency's actions were “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.” See Part III, ante. That portion of the Court's opinion strikes me as both mistaken and likely to cause confusion about where Clean Air Act dis- putes should be heard. To understand why, consider how the Court proceeds. Pur…

• #30

  sons. For one thing, it seems to me pretty far afeld from the statutory text. As we have seen, the Clean Air Act's venue provision speaks of actions and determinations, and the Act's substantive provisions do too. And when a sub- stantive provision calls for either a nationally applicable “ac- tion” or a “determi…

• #31

  prove tough for lower courts and lawyers to apply in prac- tice. Having confated a “determination” with the agency's underlying reasoning, the Court must fnd some way to go about sorting and weighing all the reasons EPA may ad- vance. But just consider what its approach entails. First, lawyers and judges must con…

• #32

  Act's Good Neighbor provision. Oklahoma, 605 U. S., at 616 (citing 88 Fed. Reg. 9336 (2023)). Now, Oklahoma, Utah, and certain industry groups seek to challenge EPA's actions in court, and they argue that their litigation belongs in a re- gional circuit. Oklahoma, 605 U. S., at 617. EPA responds that the SIPs cas…

• #33

  2 See 88 Fed. Reg. 9336 (omnibus rule); 87 Fed. Reg. 31470 (2022) (Air Plan Disapproval; Utah); id., at 9798 (Air Plan Disapproval; Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas). Page Proof Pending Publication Cite as: 605 U. S. 627 (2025) 663 Gorsuch, J., dissenting threshold played a signifcant role in separating …

• #34

  ble action or task EPA with making a determination of na- tionwide scope or effect. And no more is needed to know that, under the Act's venue provision, the SIPs dispute be- fore us belongs in a regional circuit. Id., at 626 (Gorsuch, J., concurring in judgment). * At the end of the day, venue rules are like tra…