In a ruling involving the Environmental Protection Agency’s wide authority claims, the Supreme Court of the United States has dealt President Joe Biden’s radical left climate agenda a blow.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision, stated that the agency’s congressional mandate does not grant it the authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate wetland areas near certain bodies of water, as asserted by the agency.

CBS News reported that the Supreme Court’s ruling reverses a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had sided with the EPA.

“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.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the lone conservative dissenter, agreeing with the court’s liberals that the ruling would hinder the EPA’s ability to combat pollutants.

“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.

The ruling follows a decision by the Supreme Court last year that similarly limited the agency’s legal authority to address climate change issues.

In a distinct concurring opinion, liberal Justice Elena Kagan drew a connection between the two cases and criticized the court’s self-appointed role as the final arbiter of national environmental policy. Kagan argued that the majority’s approach hinders not only the EPA’s ability to effectively regulate adjacent wetlands, but also the agency’s previous efforts to control power plant emissions in order to combat climate change.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency involved Idaho residents Michael and Chantell Sackett, who wanted to construct a home on a residential lot near Priest Lake in the state’s panhandle.

The agency issued a cease-and-desist order to the couple, instructing them to restore the property to its original condition and threatening them with hefty penalties if they did not comply. However, rather than comply with the directive, the Sacketts chose to sue the agency.

Their legal action sparked a debate regarding the suit’s timeliness, which eventually reached the Supreme Court in an earlier appeal. In 2012, the justices decided to allow the lawsuit to continue.

Attorney General Ken Paxton applauded a March federal court decision in which the state of Texas was successful in blocking the EPA’s new water rule.

“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.

More on this story via Conservative Brief:

Paxton filed suit against the Biden administration in January to block the rule. CONTINUE READING…