## Facts

- The Clean Water Act (CWA) generally prohibits discharging pollutants into “navigable waters,” defined as “waters of the United States.”
- In 2015, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) Rule defining “waters of the United States” for CWA purposes.
- The agencies described the WOTUS Rule as a definitional clarification that did not itself impose discharge restrictions or create independent regulatory requirements.
- Multiple regulated entities and states filed challenges to the Rule in federal district courts; many also filed protective petitions for review in federal courts of appeals in case the CWA’s special review provision required direct appellate review.
- The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the appellate petitions and transferred them to the Sixth Circuit.
- The National Association of Manufacturers intervened in the Sixth Circuit and moved to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction, arguing the Rule did not fall within any category listed in 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1).
- The Sixth Circuit held it had exclusive original jurisdiction under § 1369(b)(1)(E) and (F).
- The Supreme Court granted review to determine the proper forum for challenges to the WOTUS Rule.

## Issues

1. Whether 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(E) places challenges to the WOTUS Rule within the courts of appeals’ exclusive original jurisdiction as an action “approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation.”
2. Whether 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(F) places challenges to the WOTUS Rule within the courts of appeals’ exclusive original jurisdiction as an action “issuing or denying any permit” under the NPDES program.
3. If neither provision applies, whether challenges to the WOTUS Rule must be filed initially in federal district court under the ordinary path for review of final agency action.

## Decision

- The Court unanimously reversed the Sixth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held the WOTUS Rule falls outside the seven categories in § 1369(b)(1) that are directly reviewable in the courts of appeals.
- The Court concluded § 1369(b)(1)(E) did not apply because the Rule is not an “effluent limitation” and does not promulgate an “other limitation” under the specified statutory sections.
- The Court concluded § 1369(b)(1)(F) did not apply because the Rule does not issue, deny, or modify any permit under § 1342.
- As a result, original jurisdiction over challenges to the WOTUS Rule lies in federal district courts.

## Legal Principles

- The CWA channels direct appellate review only for the seven specifically listed categories of EPA action in 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1); actions outside those categories are reviewed initially in district court.
- An “effluent limitation” is a substantive restriction on pollutant discharges; a definitional rule specifying the scope of “waters of the United States” is not an effluent limitation.
- The phrase “other limitation” in § 1369(b)(1)(E), read in context, refers to discharge-related restrictions promulgated under the enumerated provisions, not to definitional rules issued under general rulemaking authority.
- § 1369(b)(1)(F) covers EPA actions that actually “issue or deny” permits; rules that may affect where permits are needed are not themselves permit issuances or denials.
- Statutory exceptions to the ordinary district-court route of review are applied according to their text; policy concerns about efficiency or uniformity do not expand jurisdiction beyond the statute’s terms.

## Conclusion

The Court held that challenges to the 2015 WOTUS Rule must be brought first in federal district court because the Rule is a definitional regulation that neither promulgates effluent limitations (or similar discharge restrictions) nor issues or denies permits within the meaning of 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1).


Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Dep't of Def., 138 S. Ct. 617 (2018)