Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS opinions (5-25-23) [ EPA Wetlands ]
Scotusblog ^ | 5/25/23 | Scotusblog

Posted on 05/25/2023 8:53:31 AM PDT by CFW

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
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."

1 posted on 05/25/2023 8:53:31 AM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CFW

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

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


2 posted on 05/25/2023 8:55:29 AM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Yep, two good ones.


3 posted on 05/25/2023 8:59:11 AM PDT by mykroar (what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how. - J0eStalin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mykroar

What was the vote count?


4 posted on 05/25/2023 8:59:53 AM PDT by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BobL

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”


5 posted on 05/25/2023 9:05:12 AM PDT by CFW (old and retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CFW

” 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?


6 posted on 05/25/2023 9:06:59 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

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


7 posted on 05/25/2023 9:07:09 AM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CFW
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?

8 posted on 05/25/2023 9:08:21 AM PDT by AAABEST ( NY/DC/CA media/political/military industrial complex DELENDA EST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.


9 posted on 05/25/2023 9:09:27 AM PDT by oldplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Thank you for the summarized update.

🏆


10 posted on 05/25/2023 9:10:23 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (Fraud vitiates everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobL

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.


11 posted on 05/25/2023 9:11:31 AM PDT by Reno89519 (Donald Tantrum? No Thank You. We Can Do Better!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CFW

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


12 posted on 05/25/2023 9:14:05 AM PDT by glennaro (Never give up ... never give in ... never surrender ... and enjoy every minute of doing so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reno89519

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.


13 posted on 05/25/2023 9:21:29 AM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CFW

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


14 posted on 05/25/2023 9:23:16 AM PDT by stylin19a ("Artillery Brings Dignity to What Would Otherwise Be Just A Vulgar Brawl")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

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.


15 posted on 05/25/2023 9:24:09 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (THE ISSUE IS NEVER THE ISSUE. THE REVOLUTION IS THE ISSUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 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.”


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/


16 posted on 05/25/2023 9:24:12 AM PDT by CFW (old and retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

The court ruled unanimously in favor of the Idaho couple


17 posted on 05/25/2023 9:25:44 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (THE ISSUE IS NEVER THE ISSUE. THE REVOLUTION IS THE ISSUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

‘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.


18 posted on 05/25/2023 9:26:45 AM PDT by Roadrunner383
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CFW
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.

19 posted on 05/25/2023 9:28:13 AM PDT by Lazamataz (The firearms I own today, are the firearms I will die with. How I die will be up to them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BobL

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/


20 posted on 05/25/2023 9:28:44 AM PDT by CFW (old and retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson