Case Explained: YUROK TRIBE, ET AL V. USEPA, ET AL

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-07

The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review of a 2024 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and remanded the matter to the EPA without vacatur for renewed rulemaking. The court held that the EPA’s decisions not to further regulate decaBDE exposures in recyclable articles, disposal, wastewater, and sewage sludge were not supported by substantial evidence as required by 15 U.S.C. § 2618(c)(1)(B)(i)(I). The court applied the “substantial evidence” standard of review mandated by TSCA § 6(h), which requires a searching review of the agency’s rationales rather than the typical arbitrary and capricious standard. The court reasoned that under TSCA § 2605(h), Congress directed expedited action to reduce exposure to decaBDE to the extent practicable, without requiring a separate risk evaluation or permitting tiered rulemaking. Specifically, the court found EPA’s rationales insufficient because: (1) citing “low levels” of exposure is outside the scope of EPA’s authority under § 6(h), which presumes any level of exposure warrants regulation; (2) cost and recycling policy arguments were unsupported by substantial evidence as the agency failed to consider targeted alternatives or contrary data on testing costs; (3) reliance on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) did not excuse EPA’s independent obligation under TSCA to address regulatory gaps in disposal; (4) the decision regarding wastewater ignored contradictory evidence of discharges and available treatment technologies; and (5) the decision regarding sewage sludge relied on a factor (low exposure levels) beyond statutory authority. The practical consequence is that the 2024 Rule remains in effect during the remand proceedings to avoid further health and environmental harm, but the EPA must conduct new rulemaking to either regulate the identified areas or provide a legally sufficient explanation for not doing so, consistent with the court’s opinion.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.