The extreme left climate agenda of President Joe Biden has been dealt a blow by the U.S. Supreme Court in a decision involving the Environmental Protection Agency’s expansive authority claims.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision, ruled against the agency’s claim that the Clean Water Act gave it the authority to regulate wetland areas near specific bodies of water.
According to CBS News, the Supreme Court’s judgment reverses the 9th Circuit’s decision, which sided with the Environmental Protection Agency.
“The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear,” Alito wrote. “Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by E.P.A. employees as wetlands covered by the act, and according to the federal government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy.”
Brett Kavanaugh was the lone conservative who dissented, concurring with the court’s liberals in their argument that the decision will hinder the EPA’s ability to combat contaminants.
“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,” Kavanaugh explained.
Following a decision made by the high court the previous year that limited the agency’s ability to address climate change issues in accordance with the law, the Supreme Court has again restricted the agency’s ability to do so.
In a separate concurring opinion, liberal justice Elena Kagan drew parallels between the two cases and disapproved of the court’s position as the definitive arbiter of national environmental policy. Kagan argued that the majority’s strategy has previously made it difficult for the EPA to reduce emissions from power facilities in order to combat climate change.
Michael and Chantell Sackett of Idaho endeavored to construct a home on a residential lot adjacent to Priest Lake in the panhandle of the state. Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency was their case.
The government sent the couple a letter requiring them to cease their construction efforts and restore the property to its previous condition or face significant penalties. However, the Sacketts chose to sue the organization rather than comply with the order.
Their legal action prompted a debate regarding the suit’s timeliness, which ultimately reached the Supreme Court in an earlier appeal. In 2012, the court ruled in favor of allowing the litigation to proceed.
The state of Texas was also successful in halting the EPA’s new water rule through a March federal court ruling, which Attorney General Ken Paxton applauded.
More on this story via The Republic Brief:
“Big victory against Biden: Last night a federal court blocked the Admin’s radical ‘waters of the US’ rule, which imposes a leftist environmental agenda on Texas, crushing new regs, and oppressive economic costs. I will always fight to keep Biden’s boots off the necks of Texans!” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton tweeted at the time. CONTINUE READING…