Posted on 05/25/2023 8:53:31 AM PDT by CFW
Yes,all credit to President Trump for his SCOTUS picks!
In reading the Sackett case synopsis, the ruling against EPA control of the property in question was unanimous. The four dissenters were against the wording of the majority ruling, which they felt limited EPA oversite on waters too much.
“Reversed and remanded, in an opinion by Justice Alito on May 25, 2023. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined.”
Where is the dissent?
May not have totally agreed with the written opinion, but overall a pretty clear rejection of the EPA’s actions.
PS: I’ll read the decision to see if I can figure out what they actually say.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Certainly there are, there’s a river just like that in the middle of the town in Arizona where my parents live. It’s a dry creek bed for probably 9 months out of the year, and a genuine river when the flood waters melt. But that doesn’t mean the lefties in the EPA will limit themselves to interpreting that word honestly as the judges intended. Since it is left to them to interpret the word, they will interpret it as broadly as possible to preserve their unlawful power. At least until the next lawsuit.
“Stop making up garbage.”
Let’s check back in after a few years, and when the EPA has continued to interpret this ruling much more broadly than the judges intended, then you can apologize.
Because the Act covers “the waters of the United States,” and those waters “includ[e]” all wetlands “adjacent” to other covered waters, the Act extends to those “adjacent” wetlands. 33 U. S. C. §§1362(7), 1344(g)(1). And in ordinary language, one thing is adjacent to another not only when it is touching, but also when it is nearby. See post, at 4–5 (quoting multiple dictionaries). So, for example, one house is adjacent to another even when a stretch of grass and a picket fence separate the two.
As applied here, that means—as the EPA and Army Corps have recognized for almost half a century—that a wetland comes within the Act if (i) it is “contiguous to or bordering a covered water, or (ii) if [it] is separated from a covered water only by a manmade dike or barrier, natural river berm, beach dune, or the like.” Post, at 14 (emphasis in original). In excluding all the wetlands in category (ii), the majority’s “‘continuous surface connection’ test disregards the ordinary meaning of ‘adjacent.’” Post, at 9. The majority thus alters—more precisely, narrows the scope of—the statute Congress drafted. And make no mistake: Congress wrote the statute it meant to....
...So I’ll conclude, sadly, by repeating what I wrote last year, with the replacement of only a single word. “[T]he Court substitutes its own ideas about policymaking for Congress’s. The Court will not allow the Clean [Water] Act to work as Congress instructed. The Court, rather than Congress, will decide how much regulation is too much.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 32). Because that is not how I think our Government should work—more, because it is not how the Constitution thinks our Government should work—I respectfully concur in the judgment only.”
Kagan’s concurring opinion, endorsing the final judgment but saying the activist court - OH THE IRONY! - went too far!
Roberts uber alles
“The Ninth Circuit held that the wetlands on the Sacketts’ property are covered by the Clean Water Act because, as relevant here, the wetlands have a “significant nexus” to covered waters nearby. 8 F. 4th 1075, 1093 (2021). The Court today reverses the Ninth Circuit’s judgment.
I agree with the Court’s reversal of the Ninth Circuit. In particular, I agree with the Court’s decision not to adopt the “significant nexus” test for determining whether a wetland is covered under the Act. And I agree with the Court’s bottom-line judgment that the wetlands on the Sacketts’ property are not covered by the Act and are therefore not subject to permitting requirements.
I write separately because I respectfully disagree with the Court’s new test for assessing when wetlands are covered by the Clean Water Act. The Court concludes that wetlands are covered by the Act only when the wetlands have a “continuous surface connection” to waters of the United States—that is, when the wetlands are “adjoining” covered waters. Ante, at 20, 22 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In my view, the Court’s “continuous surface connection” test departs from the statutory text, from 45 years of consistent agency practice, and from this Court’s precedents. The Court’s test narrows the Clean Water Act’s coverage of “adjacent” wetlands to mean only “adjoining” wetlands. But “adjacent” and “adjoining” have distinct meanings: Adjoining wetlands are contiguous to or bordering a covered water, whereas adjacent wetlands include both (i) those wetlands contiguous to or bordering a covered water, and (ii) wetlands separated from a covered water only by a man-made dike or barrier, natural river
berm, beach dune, or the like.
By narrowing the Act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands, the Court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States. Therefore, I respectfully
concur only in the Court’s judgment.”
Kavanaugh’s more pro-government approach.
“In reading the Sackett case synopsis, the ruling against EPA control of the property in question was unanimous. The four dissenters were against the wording of the majority ruling, which they felt limited EPA oversite on waters too much.”
Yeah, the liberal attorneys were torn between taking away the EPA’s powers, while at the same time recognizing the fact that they went extremely overboard in this particular case. I think they would have preferred a more narrow ruling that given the Sackett’s relief, but allowed the EPA to do the same to someone else in the future.
From the Tyler case:
“The Takings Clause “was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Armstrong, 364 U. S., at 49. A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed. The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more.
Because we find that Tyler has plausibly alleged a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and she agrees that relief under “the Takings Clause would fully remedy [her] harm,” we need not decide whether she has also alleged an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is reversed.”
I like that line: “The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more.”
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 21-454 [Arg: 10.3.2022 Trans.; Decided 5.25.2023]
As Brandon would say, ‘This is a big f^@king deal!’
Unanimous!
Unless you're a Biden Enterprise.
5-4 Kavanaugh with the rats. Not good when we are depending on the SC to stop the fascists who run the EPA and others from crushing us with mandates. I am afraid Chevron the case may codify Government overreach now. With Roberts and Kavanaugh going with the libs and giving the rats an open field to inflict misery
It’s the one thing he mostly got right. Most his other picks were terrible (Sessions, Wray, Barr, Milley, etc..)
The hang-wringing coming from Kagan, et al, here seems to completely ignore the fact that we’re talking about the federal control of waters under control of a private party.
While I’d actually have to agree with her definition of “adjacent” as it applies to multiple properties within a neighborhood, I’d also argue that a different standard of that term should apply when the topic is whether a landowner is required to cede control of their land/water to a regulatory agency of the Federal Government.
To extend her metaphor, just because a private home is “adjacent” to a public school doesn’t mean that the school is permitted to exercise control over the homeowner’s property and (for example) cut down their trees or hold football team drills in their back yard. The mere presence of something “adjacent” must never imply “control”.
IOW... the majority appears to have applied that stronger distinction. Thumbs up.
Kavanaugh has been a HUGE disappointment, this FRAT BOY was NOT worth the MASSIVE FIGHT we had to keep him there!! Gorsuch has turned out to be a stellar justice!!
“I like them both - Thank You, Trump!!!!”
What does Trump have to do with it. Am I understanding that the rulings were unanimous? Even the leftist’s agreed.
And my comment is not meant to convey that I won’t be voting for Trump because I will. But I have to call it like I see it. Not gonna be a puppet.
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.