This case note reviews Sinclair v. EPA. A case in which the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals applied Skidmore deference to review whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exceeded congressional authority when the agency interpreted “disproportionate economic hardship” into the Renewable Fuel Standards program exemption extension review process. This note argues that the majority opinion applied the wrong type of deference and examined facts of the case too narrowly. By twisting interpretations and focusing on insignificant words, The Tenth Circuit concluded that the EPA inaccurately applied their review standards. The Tenth Circuit’s decision resulted in an unnecessary circuit split.
Part II of this note is an analysis of the surrounding doctrinal history, reviewing the specific types of deference discussed in this case, legislative history, and relevant circuit decisions. Next, Part III outlines the Sinclair decision. Specifically, it provides an analysis of the court of appeal’s main arguments and dissenting opinion. Part IV compares the facts of the case against relevant case law to highlight tensions in the law related to the Tenth Circuit’s decision.