Reply Brief — Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Petitioners v. Kentucky, et al.

No. 24-961

In the Supreme Court of the United States

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL.

PETITIONERS

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, ET AL.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS

D. JOHN SAUER

Solicitor General

Counsel of Record

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov

(202) 514-2217

In the Supreme Court of the United States

No. 24-961

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL.,

PETITIONERS

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, ET AL.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS

Respondents acknowledge (Kentucky Br. in Opp. 2;

Cabinet Br. in Opp. 2) that the question presented in

this case is identical to the question presented in Oklahoma v. EPA, 145 S. Ct. 411 (2024) (No. 23-1067) (argued Mar. 25, 2025), and PacifiCorp v. EPA, 145 S. Ct.

411 (2024) (No. 23-1068) (argued Mar. 25, 2025). Respondents nevertheless contend (Kentucky Br. in Opp.

9-11; Cabinet Br. in Opp. 5) that the Court should decline to hold the petition pending the resolution of those

cases because EPA is reassessing the basis for and

soundness of the disapproval action.

That reassessment does not warrant a denial of the

petition. Even after EPA alerted the Court that the

agency was considering whether to change course on

the underlying disapproval action, this Court concluded

that it would be appropriate to resolve the venue question in Oklahoma and PacifiCorp. Indeed, the petition(1)

2

ers in both Oklahoma and PacifiCorp opposed the government’s motion to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance, arguing that the Court’s resolution of the venue

issue could provide useful clarity for parties in future

and present Clean Air Act disputes. Nor do respondents’ concerns with delay warrant a denial. See Kentucky Br. in Opp. 10. This Court has already heard oral

argument on the question presented and a decision will

likely issue in a matter of weeks. Because this case involves precisely the same agency action and precisely the

same question presented as in Oklahoma and PacifiCorp, it should be resolved in accord with those cases.

* * * * *

For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the petition for a writ of certiorari, the petition should be held

pending this Court’s decision in Oklahoma, supra (No.

23-1067), and PacifiCorp, supra (No. 23-1068), and then

disposed of as appropriate in light of that decision.

Respectfully submitted.

D. JOHN SAUER

Solicitor General

MAY 2025