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.
The court ruled unanimously in favor of the Idaho couple
“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
“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.
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
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!!