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
Publications
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act, Private Equity Law Report
Partners Charles Riely, Todd C. Toral, and Martin Glass authored a guest article for Private Equity Law Report examining the US Supreme Court's June 11, 2026, ruling on the scope of private rights of action under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
July 14, 2026
Publications
Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.
July 7, 2026
Publications
In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision
Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.
July 1, 2026
Event
Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026