[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)

[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?

[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.

🏆

[glennaro]

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

[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.

[nwrep]

Roberts uber alles

[griswold3]

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!

[blackdog]

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

Unless you're a Biden Enterprise.

[upchuck]

Congrats to the court for some clear thinking. ‘bout time the Clean Waters Act got a better, narrowed definition.

[StAnDeliver]

Unanimous in Sackett is not enough. Instead SCOTUS should have added the following:

"If the EPA and/or Corps of Engineers and/or any other Federal entity, has a case brought before SCOTUS, and loses on the basis of the new test established in Sackett, every Federal employee who signed off on any part of that Federal lawfare shall be reduced two grades of the General Schedule (GS), which shall not be appealable."

Congress could pass a law eliminating the EPA and this Federal lawfare will continue unabated.

You want to stop this lawfare evil permanently, you hit them in the wallet, you do unto them as they would do unto you.

[Robert357]

Both of those are good and very important rulings.

In WA State the courts have held that a road drainage ditch, if it has the “correct” type of soils and plants can be considered a wetland and the wetland buffer zones will apply to it. This should stop that kind of nonsense where a piece of land became a wetland just because the county put a drainage ditch beside the road.

The second ruling on confiscating excess monies is just basic equity and fairness.

[Irish Eyes]

Bookmark

[matt04]

Both very good decisions.

[rottndog]

And this is exactly why you can’t give an inch to government hacks...the idea that the definition of the term ‘navigable waterways’ needs to be determined by SCOTUS is in and of itself an abomination.

[BigEdLB]

That Minnesota case is interesting in that a concurrent opinion was issued by Gorsuch and Jackson. Talk about an odd couple.

[lapsus calami]

 

 

The media turds have been spinning it as "removing protections for clean water!" all day long. Totalitarian land grabbers deeply saddened.

 

 

[ProtectOurFreedom]

The Sackett case was on Priest Lake, Idaho. The property they bought was separated from the lake by a ROAD. Their property was a bit marshy and they were beginning to fill it in to make it buildable. The EPA told them to decease the fill or face fines of $44,000 per day. It was a real stretch of the i,agitation to declare the lake extended under the roadway to the soft, wet area they had purchased, but the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA made that argument. The Sacketts eventually gave up and moved to Montana.

This is an excellent ruling bringing a bit of sanity back to “the waters of the United States.”

[Recovering_Democrat]

does anyone know if this was decided with the girl who doesn’t know what a woman is? Or was this a decision made when Breyer was on the court?

I mean, man, if Sleepy Joe’s SCOTUS appointment ruled against EPA, that is sweet!!