Ethanol Blog

LINCOLN, Neb. (DTN) -- Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2025 that a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., was the proper venue for any legal challenges to Renewable Fuel Standard small-refinery exemption decisions, refining companies have since filed petitions with two other appeals courts.

The Supreme Court sided with ethanol groups in a 7-2 ruling on June 18, 2025, essentially ruling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was the proper venue for such legal challenges.

Since then, refining companies have instead filed appeals with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th and 11th circuits on the Trump administration's decisions on pending exemption requests issued in August 2025.

In response, ethanol interest group Growth Energy filed briefs in those cases.

In a 10th Circuit challenge filed by Suncor Energy Inc., Growth Energy filed a brief on Dec. 17, 2025, supporting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's motion to dismiss or transfer the case to the D.C. Circuit. In addition, Hunt Refining Co. filed a similar appeal in the 11th Circuit.

Growth Energy said in the brief filed in the 10th Circuit that the refiners' actions defy the Supreme Court's ruling. A nearly identical brief also was filed in the 11th Circuit.

"In the 2025 SRE decisions, EPA did exactly what the Supreme Court held makes the D.C. Circuit the exclusive forum: it adopted two nationwide determinations that made DOE's (U.S. Department of Energy) recommendation the presumptive disposition of all SRE petitions before it, including Suncor's," Growth Energy said in the brief.

"In a similar pending case filed by Suncor's counsel in the 11th Circuit, Hunt Refining Co. has already submitted a brief arguing that the 11th Circuit is the proper forum for hearing Hunt's challenge to EPA's 2025 decision on its SRE petition. Growth Energy assumes Suncor will make similar arguments here. In that brief, Hunt conceded that EPA's first two (of three) identified determinations have nationwide scope or effect, as they obviously do."

Growth Energy said that Hunt, however, "asserted that EPA's disposition of Hunt's SRE petition was not 'based on' those determinations because they 'simply establish the sort of 'nationally consistent ... framework' for 'evaluating exemption petitions.'"

The group said there should no longer be confusion about the proper venue for handling SRE challenges.

"Thus, all of the parties and the courts' efforts on the merits in the 2022 SRE cases in the Fifth and 11th circuits were wasted," Growth Energy told the 10th Circuit.

"But at least at that time there was arguably reason for the motions panels in those courts to be less sure of the proper forum given the absence of controlling Supreme Court guidance on the issue (though this court saw the issue clearly and correctly from the get-go). That is no longer the case. Calumet and Oklahoma provide ample guidance, and as shown above, that guidance makes clear that this case belongs in the D.C. Circuit, not this Court. Therefore, there is no good reason to force this court and the parties to expend time, energy, and money litigating the merits here."

Read more on DTN:

"SCOTUS Sides With Ethanol on SRE Case," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

"Trump Grants Full SREs on 63 Petitions," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @DTNeeley

(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.