The question
Whether Section 1311(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to impose "end-result" provisions in NPDES permits that make a permittee responsible for the quality of the water into which it discharges, rather than specifying the steps the permittee must take.
City and County of San Francisco v. EPA
What the Court decided
The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that Section 1311(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act does not let the EPA write "end-result" provisions into NPDES permits. Such provisions make a permittee responsible for the receiving water's quality without telling the permittee what to do or refrain from doing. The Court reasoned that the statute's terms "limitation," "implement," and "meet" require the EPA to set the specific measures a permittee must follow, and that determining those steps is the EPA's responsibility because Congress gave it the tools to do so.
How the justices split
5-4The Court's opinion
Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, Jackson
Section 1311(b)(1)(C) does not authorize the EPA to impose end-result provisions in NPDES permits. Not all limitations under Section 1311 must be effluent limitations, since subsection (C) refers to any more stringent limitation while subsections (A) and (B) refer to effluent limitations, showing Congress authorized limitations beyond effluent limitations. The terms limitation, implement, and meet require the EPA to set specific rules that permittees must follow rather than mandating an end result, because a limitation is a restriction imposed from without and determining the steps needed to meet water quality standards is the EPA's responsibility.
Dissenting in part
Barrett, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson
This opinion agreed that not all limitations under Section 1311 must be effluent limitations, which is Part II of the Court's opinion that these Justices joined, but dissented from the portion of the opinion holding that Section 1311(b)(1)(C) does not authorize permit requirements conditioning compliance on receiving water quality.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that Section 1311(b)(1)(C) does not authorize the EPA to include end-result provisions in NPDES permits.
Source: syllabus, Held
Determining what steps a permittee must take to ensure water quality standards are met is the EPA's responsibility, and Congress gave it the tools to make that determination.
Source: syllabus, Held
Because Section 1311(b)(1)(C) refers to any more stringent limitation while subsections (A) and (B) refer to effluent limitations, Congress intentionally authorized limitations beyond effluent limitations.
Source: syllabus, Held
Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, and Kavanaugh, and by Gorsuch as to all but Part II, and by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson as to Part II.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Barrett filed an opinion dissenting in part, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson.
Source: syllabus, lineup