Posted on 05/25/2023 5:51:08 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5–4 decision reined in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) effort to impose extensive federal land use regulation through its broad interpretation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The decision in the case of Sackett v. EPA turns on the question of the proper definition of the term "the waters of the United States" (WOTUS). Interestingly, all the justices concurred in the judgment that plaintiffs Michael and Chantell Sackett's property and actions were not covered by the CWA.
In the case, the Sacketts had purchased property near Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare for building a home. The EPA claimed that the property contained wetlands over which the agency exercised authority under the Clean Water Act which prohibits discharging pollutants into "the waters of the United States." The EPA threatened to impose a fine of $40,000 per day if the Sacketts did not desist.
The majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito noted that EPA bureaucrats had "classified the wetlands on the Sacketts' lot as 'waters of the United States' because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake." The EPA's ruling against the Sacketts was upheld in federal district court and the 9th Circuit Appeals Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Now, if they’d only follow the same logic with 2A cases . . .
This is the Federal Statute. There are still local Wetland laws and I would be interested in how they are effected...if they are effected at all.
Hope the courts stop this as well.. Scary as hell.
I couldn’t find the breakdown of justices opinions—anyone know?
Unanimous.
Is this the case with implications for Chevron deference that I heard about?
The first sentence:
The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5–4 decision
ALITO , J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS , C. J., and THOMAS , GORSUCH, and BARRETT , JJ., joined. THOMAS , J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., joined.
As anyone except the reporter can see plainly, the decision was UNANIMOUS, not 5-4.
Here is the decision in full.
For future reference, you may wish to bookmark the Court's website. Click on "OPINIONS".
This article from Michigan Farm Bureau says the decision was 9-0, and that the fines against the Sacketts were $75k/day.
Not sure why the two articles disagree on these details.
Fake news.
See Hebrews 11:6 post #9 above:
Tip: When posting a URL address . . .
Examine the text of the URL address from left to right.
When you encounter a question mark followed by “utm_” - for example:
https://www.somewebsite.com/2023/05/?utm_
you can remove all of the characters beginning with the question mark and thence to the right, leaving in our example:
https://www.somewebsite.com/2023/05/
Reason: Helps some display problems for FreeRepublic users of mobile devices.
Good news; thanks.
My understanding is that state EPA’s can have regulations which are stricter, but not less strict, than the federal regulations. In many states wetlands are handled by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Hey EPA
When , and by Whom,,,
,, is it legal
To burn thousands of gallons of vinyl chloride,
releasing phosgene gas,
in an open air pit ?
Until you commies answer that
your regulations deserve squat attention.
That’s correct. I dealt with a Colonel at the Army Corps of Engineers. Bottom line...I won.
I believe the usual is....the strictest rules.
Kavanaugh sided with the three Dems....oops...I mean liberals.
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.