US Supreme Court Rules Against EPA in Clean Water Act Permitting Dispute
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City and County of San Francisco in a case against the US Environmental Protection Agency involving the scope of the Clean Water Act. See City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23-753 (Mar. 4, 2025). At issue was the Clean Water Act’s discharge permitting program. Specifically, the issue was whether the Clean Water Act allows permits to include limits that are based on the quality of the receiving water, or whether all permit limits must be based on the permittee’s conduct.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Alito, sided with San Francisco and held that receiving water-based permit terms is not allowed. The Court concluded that such limits—which it called “end result” requirements—exceed EPA’s authority. The Court reasoned that the plain meaning of the statutory term “limitation,” along with the structure and history of the Clean Water Act, made clear that all permit limits must be focused on the permittee’s conduct. Among other things, this interpretation preserved the full force of the so-called “permit shield,” which deems a permittee in compliance with the Clean Water Act, and shields it from liability, so long as it complies with the terms of its permit.
Going forward, this means that Clean Water Act permit terms can specify numeric limits on discharges and may also provide steps the discharger must take to reduce pollution (such as testing and reporting), but they may not impose restrictions based on water quality alone. Such permit terms had been relatively common in some types of permits, including for general permits that provide broad coverage for industries like the construction industry and others. Now, these permits will need to be more narrowly tailored, and in some circumstances more prescriptive than before. This decision could also mean that entities seeking permits could face delays if, as expected and noted in the Court’s decision, EPA must gather additional information before issuing some permits.
Jenner & Block is prepared to counsel clients on the effects of this decision. Please reach out to your Jenner & Block contact for more information.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Alito, sided with San Francisco and held that receiving water-based permit terms is not allowed. The Court concluded that such limits—which it called “end result” requirements—exceed EPA’s authority. The Court reasoned that the plain meaning of the statutory term “limitation,” along with the structure and history of the Clean Water Act, made clear that all permit limits must be focused on the permittee’s conduct. Among other things, this interpretation preserved the full force of the so-called “permit shield,” which deems a permittee in compliance with the Clean Water Act, and shields it from liability, so long as it complies with the terms of its permit.
Going forward, this means that Clean Water Act permit terms can specify numeric limits on discharges and may also provide steps the discharger must take to reduce pollution (such as testing and reporting), but they may not impose restrictions based on water quality alone. Such permit terms had been relatively common in some types of permits, including for general permits that provide broad coverage for industries like the construction industry and others. Now, these permits will need to be more narrowly tailored, and in some circumstances more prescriptive than before. This decision could also mean that entities seeking permits could face delays if, as expected and noted in the Court’s decision, EPA must gather additional information before issuing some permits.
Jenner & Block is prepared to counsel clients on the effects of this decision. Please reach out to your Jenner & Block contact for more information.
Related Attorneys
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City and County of San Francisco in a case against the US Environmental Protection Agency involving the scope of the Clean Water Act. See City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23-753 (Mar. 4, 2025). At issue was the Clean Water Act’s discharge permitting program. Specifically, the issue was whether the Clean Water Act allows permits to include limits that are based on the quality of the receiving water, or whether all permit limits must be based on the permittee’s conduct.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Alito, sided with San Francisco and held that receiving water-based permit terms is not allowed. The Court concluded that such limits—which it called “end result” requirements—exceed EPA’s authority. The Court reasoned that the plain meaning of the statutory term “limitation,” along with the structure and history of the Clean Water Act, made clear that all permit limits must be focused on the permittee’s conduct. Among other things, this interpretation preserved the full force of the so-called “permit shield,” which deems a permittee in compliance with the Clean Water Act, and shields it from liability, so long as it complies with the terms of its permit.
Going forward, this means that Clean Water Act permit terms can specify numeric limits on discharges and may also provide steps the discharger must take to reduce pollution (such as testing and reporting), but they may not impose restrictions based on water quality alone. Such permit terms had been relatively common in some types of permits, including for general permits that provide broad coverage for industries like the construction industry and others. Now, these permits will need to be more narrowly tailored, and in some circumstances more prescriptive than before. This decision could also mean that entities seeking permits could face delays if, as expected and noted in the Court’s decision, EPA must gather additional information before issuing some permits.
Jenner & Block is prepared to counsel clients on the effects of this decision. Please reach out to your Jenner & Block contact for more information.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Alito, sided with San Francisco and held that receiving water-based permit terms is not allowed. The Court concluded that such limits—which it called “end result” requirements—exceed EPA’s authority. The Court reasoned that the plain meaning of the statutory term “limitation,” along with the structure and history of the Clean Water Act, made clear that all permit limits must be focused on the permittee’s conduct. Among other things, this interpretation preserved the full force of the so-called “permit shield,” which deems a permittee in compliance with the Clean Water Act, and shields it from liability, so long as it complies with the terms of its permit.
Going forward, this means that Clean Water Act permit terms can specify numeric limits on discharges and may also provide steps the discharger must take to reduce pollution (such as testing and reporting), but they may not impose restrictions based on water quality alone. Such permit terms had been relatively common in some types of permits, including for general permits that provide broad coverage for industries like the construction industry and others. Now, these permits will need to be more narrowly tailored, and in some circumstances more prescriptive than before. This decision could also mean that entities seeking permits could face delays if, as expected and noted in the Court’s decision, EPA must gather additional information before issuing some permits.
Jenner & Block is prepared to counsel clients on the effects of this decision. Please reach out to your Jenner & Block contact for more information.
Related Attorneys
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Associate Steven Arango to Speak at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair
On September 18, Associate Steven Arango will speak on a panel at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair (VLCF), the only legal career fair in the United States dedicated to veterans, active-duty service members, and military spouses.
September 18, 2026
Publications
In American Banker, Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Weighs in on OCC's Handling of Fintech Bank Charter Applications
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon spoke with American Banker about how the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is approaching bank charter applications from fintechs, amid a growing wave of companies seeking charters from federal regulators.
August 18, 2026
Event
Partner David Greenwald to Speak at PLI Program on Privilege and AI
On August 17, David Greenwald will speak at "Fitting New “Tech” Into the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection," a virtual program hosted by the Practising Law Institute (PLI).
August 17, 2026
Publications
Special Counsel Kimberly Cook Featured in FCBA Member Spotlight
The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) featured Kimberly Cook in its Member Spotlight series.
August 13, 2026
Recognition
Three Jenner & Block Partners Named to Crain's New York Business' 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law List
Crain's New York Business recognized Jenner & Block Partners Anthony Barkow, Alison Stein, and Damian Williams among its 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law.
August 10, 2026