SCOTUS opinions (5-25-23) [ EPA Wetlands ]

Scotusblog ^ | 5/25/23 | Scotusblog

[CFW]

The court issued two opinions this morning that may be of interest to Freepers.

The first, issued by Justice Barrett was:

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 21-454 [Arg: 10.3.2022 Trans.; Decided 5.25.2023]

Holding: The Clean Water Act extends only to wetlands that have a continuous surface connection with “waters” of the United States — i.e., with a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7) — making it difficult to determine where the water ends and the wetland begins.

The second, by Justice Roberts was:

Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota, No. 22-166 [Arg: 04.26.2023 Trans.; Decided 5.25.2023]

Holding: Geraldine Tyler plausibly alleges that Hennepin County unconstitutionally retained the excess value of her home above her tax debt in violation of the takings clause.

[CFW]

The Sackett case was the issue where a couple had purchased property about fifteen years ago and the EPA prevented them from disturbing the property because it was adjacent to "navigable bodies of water".

From the Court:

"The court holds that the Clean Water Act applies only to wetlands that are "as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States." Therefore, the party that wants the CWA to apply to adjacent wetlands must show that the adjacent body of water is a "water of the United States" -- that is, "a relatively permeable body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters" -- and that the wetland "has a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the 'water' ends and the 'wetland' begins""

A good ruling by Barrett and the Court.

-----

The second was the case where a Minnesota county seized a grandmother's home, sold it to pay the past due property taxes of $15,000, and kept the remainder of the sale proceeds. Another good ruling by the Court.

The court today holds that Tyler has plausibly alleged a violation of the Takings Clause.

"The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more," Roberts writes."

[BobL]

I like them both - Thank You, Trump!!!!

(I just say that to tweak the NeverTrumpers, even though it’s also true)

[mykroar]

Yep, two good ones.

[gibsonguy]

What was the vote count?

[CFW]

In his concurrence in the water case, Thomas also writes that today’s opinion “curbs a serious expansion of federal authority that has simultaneously degraded States’ authority and diverted the Federal Government from its important role as guarantor of the Nation’s great commercial water highways into something resembling ‘a local zoning board.’”

And this should seriously restrict the EPA’s future ability to use the wetlands argument against property owners who want to develop that property.

“The court holds that the Clean Water Act applies only to wetlands that are “as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States.” Therefore, the party that wants the CWA to apply to adjacent wetlands must show that the adjacent body of water is a “water of the United States” — that is, “a relatively permeable body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters” — and that the wetland “has a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins”

[Boogieman]

” i.e., with a relatively permanent body of water connected...”

That little word “relatively” gives the EPA all the wiggle room they need to continue declaring absolutely any puddle in the county a “wetland”. Is the right ever going to learn that if allow the dishonest left even the tiniest smidgeon of leeway to continue their shenanigans, they will do so, and do so shamelessly?

[BobL]

It’s also a really good sign regarding the Chevron-related Case.

[AAABEST]

Holding: The Clean Water Act extends only to wetlands that have a continuous surface connection with “waters” of the United States — i.e., with a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7)

It's about time.

Does this mean the communists at the EPA can't use the "wetlands" excuse to sieze property?

[oldplayer]

Thanks for posting these, CFW. Not only are these two cases interesting (Tyler being a “no brainer”), but the whole page you linked to was full of interesting stuff.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Thank you for the summarized update.

🏆

[Reno89519]

Yes, now tweaking of anyone is necessary. I do not support Trump for 2024 but if he is the nominee, I’ll vote for him. The Supreme Court is the only Trump legacy that has lasted him leaving office. We see good results from nearly every new ruling from the court. Can we get more like these new justices in the next four years? I’m confident that most any Republican will deliver, DeSantis or Trump. We definitely won’t get them with Biden or any Democrat.

[glennaro]

Many thanks for the recap of these two fine, Constitutionally sound rulings.

[BobL]

I tend to agree with you regarding good judges by DeSantis, as the record of GOP Globalists is quite good (far better than their record on our border). But I’ll still thank Trump when appropriate, just as praise DeSantis regarding what he’s doing in Florida.

[stylin19a]

SCOTUS wise choice. Last thing we need is a billion Sacketts and their cousins coming out of the hills to cover their kin folk.

[Jeff Chandler]

in the water case:

split 5-4 on the court’s new test, which held that only wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to a body of water are covered by the law.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the court’s three liberals.

[CFW]

“Thanks for posting these, CFW. Not only are these two cases interesting (Tyler being a “no brainer”), but the whole page you linked to was full of interesting stuff.”

---

Scotusblog is a great site to go to for latest Court news. The site is not operated by the Courts, but by attorney “court-watchers”. However, be warned that all the attorneys are leftists and so their comments, and news articles they link to are more often from a progressive point of view. However, when it comes to the cases themselves, they simply post the facts.

We should be having court opinion days every Thursday from now until the end of June. They may add additional days given the fact there is quite a number of cases that have yet to be decided.

For information on this term’s cases, both already decided, and those still pending, go to this link:

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2022/

[Jeff Chandler]

The court ruled unanimously in favor of the Idaho couple

[Roadrunner383]

‘That little word “relatively” gives the EPA all the wiggle room they need to continue declaring absolutely any puddle in the county a “wetland”..’

Stop making up garbage. You understand that the EPA LOST THE CASE, right? It’s a big win for conservatives and the people of the U.S. Having said that, you are now free to return to your dark corner and resume eating worms.

[Lazamataz]

And this should seriously restrict the EPA’s future ability to use the wetlands argument against property owners who want to develop that property.

With all due respect, sir, I believe you haven't been paying attention.

The EPA will behave just like New York. When the SCOTUS told New York State to stop denying permits, New York simply passed a series of laws making permits completely worthless.

The EPA will just find another angle to end-run the SCOTUS.

[CFW]

The attorneys at Scotusblog write fast!

Here is the synopsis of the Sackett case and the Court’s decision:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/supreme-court-curtails-clean-water-act/

And here is the same on the Tyler case:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/justices-rule-minnesota-county-violated-takings-clause/