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 Lawyers
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 Lawyers
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
Amanda Shafer Berman to Speak on Energy and Administrative Law at WEN-DC Webinar
As the Supreme Court's new Term begins, Jenner & Block Partner Amanda Shafer Berman will join a Women's Energy Network of Washington, DC (WEN-DC) webinar on how the Court's decisions are shaping the energy sector.
October 14, 2026
Publications
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman Quoted in Bloomberg Law on Senate Permitting Overhaul Bill
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman was quoted in an October 5 Bloomberg Law article, "Permitting Deal Gives Projects Defense Against Litigation Delays," on the Senate's new permitting overhaul package and its expected impact on litigation over federal permitting reversals.
October 2026
Event
Partner John Storino to Speak at Sandpiper Partners' “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable”
On October 8, Partner John Storino will serve as a panelist at the “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable,” hosted by Sandpiper Partners in Chicago.
October 8, 2026
Event
Partner Meghan Greenfield to Speak on Supreme Court Climate Case at Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference
On Wednesday, October 7, Partner Meghan Greenfield will speak on a panel titled "Boulder County v. Suncor Energy: What the Supreme Court's Climate Case Means for the Energy Industry" at the Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.
October 7, 2026
Publications
The Form Rules Everything: A Seventh Circuit Ruling on ERISA's Substantial Compliance Doctrine
Partner Joseph Torres and Special Counsel Jennifer Beach authored an article for Employee Relations Law Journal examining the Seventh Circuit's decision in Packaging Corp. of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees v. Langdon, a ruling that addresses both the standard of review in ERISA interpleader actions and the continued viability of the substantial compliance doctrine for changing plan beneficiaries.
October 5, 2026
Recognition
Jenner & Block Rises in American Lawyer Rankings for Summer Associate Experience
Jenner & Block ranked 14th nationally in The American Lawyer’s 2026 Summer Associate Satisfaction Survey, jumping 10 spots from last year. The annual survey measures summer associate satisfaction at US law firms based on ratings provided directly by summer associates across key firm qualities.
October 2, 2026