CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Background

The plaintiffs filed the action against Lee Zeldin in his official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. They alleged that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to perform nondiscretionary duties under the Clean Air Act concerning the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards.

EPA had designated the Phoenix-Mesa, Arizona, and Mariposa County, California, areas as marginal nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone standards. After those areas did not attain the standards by the applicable date, they were reclassified as moderate nonattainment areas. The moderate attainment date was August 3, 2024. The plaintiffs alleged that EPA had to determine whether the areas attained the standards by February 3, 2025, and publish the determinations in the Federal Register, but had not done so.

Before entry of the decree, an acting EPA regional administrator signed a final rulemaking action concerning the Mariposa County area, and that notice was published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2025. The consent decree addresses the remaining action concerning the Phoenix-Mesa area.

Consent Decree

The parties agreed to settle the case without further litigation and without admitting any issue of fact or law except as expressly stated in the decree. The decree requires the appropriate EPA official to sign a final action fulfilling EPA's obligation concerning the Phoenix-Mesa 2015 ozone moderate nonattainment area no later than February 3, 2026.

Within 20 business days after signing that final action, EPA must send notice of the action to the Office of the Federal Register for review and publication. The deadline may be extended under specified circumstances, including certain extensions of a notice-and-comment period, a written stipulation filed by the parties, a court-ordered extension for good cause, or a lapse in EPA appropriations during the 120 days before the deadline.

The decree states that it is a complete settlement of all claims in the case. It also establishes procedures for resolving disputes about interpretation or implementation before a party seeks enforcement or contempt proceedings. The plaintiffs reserve the right to seek additional litigation costs, including reasonable attorney fees, and EPA reserves the right to oppose such a request. The decree extends the deadlines for filing requests for costs incurred before entry of the decree.

Court's Order and Effect

The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the consent decree and resolve requests for litigation costs. The decree does not give the court authority to review matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Courts of Appeals, and it preserves the discretion that the Clean Air Act or other law gives EPA when taking the required actions.

After EPA completes the required action, the notice is published, and the parties resolve litigation costs, EPA may move to terminate the consent decree. If that motion is granted, the matter is to be dismissed with prejudice under the decree. The order itself states that it was entered before testimony and without further adjudication of any issue of fact or law. The court therefore resolved the case through a consent decree rather than deciding whether the plaintiffs' underlying allegations were correct.