A Ripple Effect: The Supreme Court Limitation of EPA Authority in San Francisco V

By Bri Candela ‘28

The 2025 Supreme Court case City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency is a major ruling that cuts back on how much control the EPA has under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Basically, the case was about whether the EPA could require San Francisco’s wastewater treatment plants to follow broad, vague water quality standards that don’t actually list specific pollution limits. The decision is part of a bigger legal trend of scaling back federal agencies' power, especially after the 2024 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned Chevron deference. Chevron deference was a legal principle that required courts to give significant weight to a federal agency's interpretation of a law when that law is unclear. The case raises serious questions about how the U.S. will handle water pollution going forward. Will states take charge, or will national environmental protections weaken across the board?

San Francisco runs wastewater treatment plants that discharge treated sewage into San Francisco Bay. Under the CWA, any facility dumping pollutants into a waterway needs a permit from the EPA, which sets rules to limit pollution. In this case, the EPA required San Francisco to meet narrative water quality standards, which are basically vague rules that say the city can't release anything that causes "undesirable" effects on water quality.

San Francisco pushed back, saying these rules were too broad and that the city shouldn’t be blamed for pollution it didn’t directly cause—like runoff from farms and streets that also flows into the Bay. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the EPA, but San Francisco took it to the Supreme Court, arguing that EPAs permit requirements were too vague.  The case got a ton of national attention, with environmental groups, business organizations, and state governments filing arguments on both sides.

On March 4, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of San Francisco, striking down the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the EPA went too far by imposing broad, undefined conditions instead of setting clear pollutant limits in permits. The CWA only lets the EPA regulate specific pollutants, not set general water quality goals. Agencies need to provide clear, measurable standards, not rely on subjective rules that permit holders might not even understand. The ruling follows a broader push to rein in federal agencies and ensure they don’t expand their authority beyond what Congress explicitly allows; it could open the door for more legal challenges to environmental and labor regulations in the future.

 Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by the Court’s three liberal justices, strongly disagreed. She argued that the ruling makes it harder for the EPA to regulate complex pollution problems like agricultural runoff and stormwater, which don’t have clear numerical limits. Without flexible standards, it’s easier for polluters to avoid responsibility, which could lead to worse water quality. This decision could weaken environmental protections across the country and make it harder to fight climate change in the long run. This has big implications moving forward. The EPA’s power shrinks since the Court ruled against broad narrative water quality standards, meaning the EPA will have to set specific pollution limits. This could make it harder for the agency to regulate certain kinds of pollution, like runoff that comes from multiple sources. 

Now that the EPA has less power, state agencies will likely take on a bigger role in water regulation. Some states like California will probably keep strict standards, while others might loosen regulations. This could lead to huge differences in water quality protections across the country. Additionally, this could make it harder to hold polluters accountable for their actions. Without broad EPA oversight, some industries and cities might have an easier time passing environmental reviews. Weaker regulations could mean higher cleanup costs for polluted waterways, increased health risks from dirty drinking water and more lawsuits from environmental groups. This will also affect taxpayers not just health wise but financially. Restoring our water quality will be costly.  A lot of businesses are split on this ruling. Some industries support the decision, saying it cuts red tape and lowers costs. Others worry that weaker federal oversight could lead to more lawsuits and reputation damage if pollution gets out of hand. 

The City and County of San Francisco v. EPA ruling marks a turning point in environmental law. By limiting the EPA’s ability to impose broad water quality standards, the Supreme Court has reshaped how water pollution is regulated. Some believe this ruling clarifies the limits of federal power and prevents overreach, while others argue it weakens environmental protections and creates uncertainty about how the country will tackle pollution. As the legal landscape shifts, policymakers, environmental groups, and industries will need to adapt to these new challenges while still working to protect U.S. waterways.

Bri Candela is a freshman majoring in political science.

Sources

City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23-753, 601 U.S. 1-14 (2025).

Kruze, J. ( 2025, March 2025) US Supreme Court reins in EPA power to police water pollution discharge. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-reins-epa-power-police-water-pollution-discharge-2025-03-04/

Summary of the Clean Water Act US EPA. (2024, June 12) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act

Sherman, K. (March 4, 2025) Supreme Court makes it harder for EPA to police sewage discharges. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-san-francisco-water-pollution-6874dc505a394d9181b17a0aef41406f