Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Showing Original Post only (View all)

BumRushDaShow

(129,053 posts)
Thu May 25, 2023, 10:55 AM May 2023

Supreme Court rules against EPA in dispute over regulating wetlands [View all]

Last edited Thu May 25, 2023, 12:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: CBS News

Washington -- The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate certain wetlands that qualify as "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act, curbing what has long been seen as a key tool to protect waterways from pollution.

The high court ruled against the agency in a long-running dispute with Idaho landowners known as Sackett v. EPA. In an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the court found that the agency's interpretation of the wetlands covered by the Clean Water Act is "inconsistent" with the law's text and structure, and the law extends only to "wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies of water that are 'waters of the United States' in their own right."

While the majority acknowledged that weather and climate events like low tides and dry spells can cause "temporary interruptions" between bodies of waters covered by the law, the court said that wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act should be otherwise "indistinguishable" from other regulated waters.

The Supreme Court's ruling reverses a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which sided with the EPA. The court ruled unanimously in favor of the Idaho couple, Michael and Chantell Sackett, that brought the case, but split 5-4 in its reasoning. Joining Alito's majority opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in the judgment.

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-epa-clean-water-act/



Link to opinion - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf

Article updated.

Original article -

Washington -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency in a dispute over its authority to regulate certain wetlands under the Clean Water Act, long seen as a key tool to protect waterways from pollution.

In an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito in the case known as Sackett v. EPA, the high court found that the agency's interpretation of the wetlands covered under the Clean Water Act is "inconsistent" with the law's text and structure, and the law extends only to "wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies of water that are 'waters of the United States' in their own right."

Five justices joined the majority opinion by Alito, while the remaining four -- Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson -- concurred in the judgment.

The decision from the conservative court is the latest to target the authority of the EPA to police pollution. On the final day of its term last year, the high court limited the agency's power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, dealing a blow to efforts to combat climate change.
53 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
And the Nutters think its Democrats that want to Ruin America... RegulatedCapitalistD May 2023 #1
Ignore the pigs-in-a-blanket peppertree May 2023 #2
Brick by brick... ret5hd May 2023 #3
Creating a dystopian environmental future, repealing one EPA regulation at a time. nt OAITW r.2.0 May 2023 #4
All nine voted against the EPA. hedda_foil May 2023 #5
All nine concurred that the specific land/wetlands at issue in this case did not meet the KPN May 2023 #23
Thank you for clarifying. hedda_foil May 2023 #26
Democrats have waited long enough to add judges to the supreme court Escurumbele May 2023 #6
The Dem Justices also voted against the EPA obamanut2012 May 2023 #7
Conservatives are really good at picking the right cases The Mouth May 2023 #19
"What are they waiting for?" BumRushDaShow May 2023 #8
Better yes, how does it pass in the House? Polybius May 2023 #21
That is a given at the moment BumRushDaShow May 2023 #25
it was a unanimous descision moonshinegnomie May 2023 #10
Not exactly. The decision set aside the agency's determination that the wetland involved was KPN May 2023 #30
it was a unanimous descision moonshinegnomie May 2023 #9
How much $$$ did it cost mountain grammy May 2023 #11
different sacketts moonshinegnomie May 2023 #18
Doesn't matter. Same disease. mountain grammy May 2023 #24
All 3 liberal Justices Zeitghost May 2023 #39
Very bad decision mountain grammy May 2023 #43
There is no benefit for them in compromise Zeitghost May 2023 #45
I've learned to never argue with a 9-0 decision Polybius May 2023 #47
All 9 voted for it. Are you saying all 9 were paid? jimfields33 May 2023 #28
The court is compromised. mountain grammy May 2023 #44
Are you suggesting Zeitghost May 2023 #46
I'm suggesting that this court is compromised mountain grammy May 2023 #51
And The Clean Water Act was bipartisan and championed by Nixon... JT45242 May 2023 #12
SCOTUSblog had a link to the opinion (PDF) BumRushDaShow May 2023 #14
This court will ALWAYS side with billionaires and corporations. CousinIT May 2023 #13
And these people know noting about wetland behaviors and ecosystems Novara May 2023 #15
Well what this exposed was that the law needs to be updated BumRushDaShow May 2023 #16
instead of speculating about what a wetland is, here's the EPA's definition Novara May 2023 #27
I don't know if you read the ruling BumRushDaShow May 2023 #32
lots of hyperbole there. Novara May 2023 #33
Exactly BumRushDaShow May 2023 #34
a total cop-out Novara May 2023 #35
From what I understand, this case was brought in 2007 BumRushDaShow May 2023 #36
she's absolutely right Novara May 2023 #37
Probably because it was narrow, pretty much focused on this one property owner BumRushDaShow May 2023 #38
This is an excellent summary why this is such a horrible decision Novara May 2023 #48
Well it's actually worse than just that BumRushDaShow May 2023 #49
Agreed. And fuck knows where that will lead us. Novara May 2023 #53
VOTE ... and expand the court! KPN May 2023 #17
So 13-0 instead of 9-0? jimfields33 May 2023 #29
Maybe as regards to EPAs determination as to whether the law and its implementing regulations KPN May 2023 #31
Kavanaugh in the minority Polybius May 2023 #20
It was actually "unanimous" BumRushDaShow May 2023 #22
I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty good at reading laws and cases jgmiller May 2023 #40
I agree, jg, and may do just that, when I find the time. elleng May 2023 #42
'the remaining four -- concurred in the judgment. elleng May 2023 #41
No surprise orangecrush May 2023 #50
when the (formerly) supreme court makes a ruling Marthe48 May 2023 #52
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court rules again...