Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-472_0pm1.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–472 
_________________ 

HOLLYFRONTIER CHEYENNE REFINING, LLC, 
ET AL., PETITIONERS v. RENEWABLE 
FUELS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

[June 25, 2021] 

JUSTICE GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court. 
Congress requires most domestic refineries to blend a cer-
tain amount of ethanol and other renewable fuels into the 
transportation  fuels  they  produce.    But  when  it  first 
adopted  these  mandates,  Congress  temporarily  exempted
small refineries across the board.  Looking beyond that ini-
tial period, Congress authorized individual small refineries
to apply for additional hardship “extensions” from the fed-
eral government “at any time.”  The question before us is 
whether a small refinery that manages to comply with re-
newable fuel mandates in one year is forever forbidden from
applying for an “extension” in any future year. 

I 

In  2005  and  2007,  Congress  created  the  renewable  fuel 
program  (RFP). 
§§201,  202(a)(1),  121  Stat.  1519,  42 
U. S. C. §7545(o)(1)(J), (o)(1)(L), (o)(2)(A)(i).  For 2006, Con-
gress ordained the inclusion of 4 billion gallons of renew-
able  fuel  in  the  Nation’s  fuel  supply.    §7545(o)(2)(B)(i)(I).
By 2022, the number will climb to 36 billion gallons.  Ibid.