| HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 27, 2021 Decided June 25, 2021 | |
| Full case name | HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC, et al. v. Renewable Fuels Association, et al. |
| Docket no. | 20-472 |
| Citations | 594 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Holding | |
| A small refinery that previously received a hardship exemption may obtain an "extension" under §7545(o)(9)(B)(i) even if it saw a lapse in exemption coverage in a previous year. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Gorsuch, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Kavanaugh |
| Dissent | Barrett, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan |
HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with exemptions from blending requirements for small refineries set by the Renewable Fuel Standard program. The case dealt with the statutory interpretation of the congressional language for extending the exemption, if this allowed a lapse in the exemption or not. In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that by the majority's interpretation of the law, the congressional law did allow for refineries to seek extensions after their exemption period had lapsed.