The US Supreme Court unanimously rules against EPA in wetlands dispute

Conservative Roof
Sun, 28 May 2023 23:28 UTC

© Cowboy State Daily

Wetlands

On Thursday, the US Supreme Court delivered a unanimous ruling against the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to regulate wetlands.

This decision deals a significant blow to Joe Biden's climate agenda, marking a triumph for the American people.

Biden's EPA wanted to regulate every puddle and pond which they deemed "wetlands" under the Clean Water Act, but the Supreme Court struck it down.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Michael and Chantell Sackett, a couple from Idaho who filed a lawsuit after the EPA blocked them from building a home on their own land because it contained "wetlands."

On Thursday, the US Supreme Court unanimously sided with the Sacketts, but its reasoning for the ruling was split 5-4.

As reported by CBS News:

The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate certain wetlands that qualify as "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act, curbing what has long been seen as a key tool to protect waterways from pollution.

The high court ruled against the agency in a long-running dispute with Idaho landowners known as Sackett v. EPA.

In an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the court found that the agency's interpretation of the wetlands covered by the Clean Water Act is "inconsistent" with the law's text and structure, and the law extends only to "wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies of water that are 'waters of the United States' in their own right."

While the majority acknowledged that weather and climate events like low tides and dry spells can cause "temporary interruptions" between bodies of waters covered by the law, the court said that wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act should be otherwise "indistinguishable" from other regulated waters.

The Supreme Court's ruling reverses a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which sided with the EPA.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer whined about the Supreme Court's decision and falsely claimed the "MAGA Supreme Court" is eroding our country's environmental laws.

The ruling was UNANIMOUS.

Comment: The ruling is a defining moment for the EPA, a win for private property rights.

In its Thursday ruling on Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, which directly impacts Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rules, the court decided that the Clean Water Act does not allow the EPA to regulate discharges into some wetlands near bodies of water.

William Perry Pendley, former acting director of the Bureau of Land Management and a Wyoming attorney, said the decision recognizes the potential overreach of federal governmental control.

"It had nothing to do with pollution and everything to do with bureaucrats threatening landowners and threatening to send them to jail. Private landowners have the right to use their property."

U.S. Sen. Cynthia Lummis, said in a press release:

"The Biden administration clearly overreached its authority in defining which waters received federal protections, and I'm glad the Supreme Court agreed with what Republicans have been saying all along. After decades of uncertainty, we finally have a majority opinion from the Supreme Court that will lay this issue to rest once and for all."

Although Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the three liberal justices agreed with the concurring opinion, Kavanaugh said the decision would hinder the EPA's ability to combat pollution.

"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."

The Sackett case was actually a second part of a 16-year saga between Idaho landowners Michael and Chantell Sackett and the federal government. After the couple started preparing their property for construction in 2007, the EPA ordered them to stop and return the property to its original state.

The couple sued, and in 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the couple had the right to challenge the EPA over the matter.