Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Administrative agency over reaches and gets slapped back 9-0. No shock here.

Chevron deference is next.

It was 5-4.

It was 9-0 in concluding that EPA overreached with respect to the litigants of the case. It was 9-0 to scrap the existing test used by EPA as an overreach. It was 5-4 on which test would replace the now defunct test.

From SCOTUSblog.com

The above really misrepresents the ruling

…Four justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – agreed that the CWA does not apply to the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot, but they disagreed with the majority’s reasoning. In an opinion joined by the three liberal justices, Kavanaugh contended that “[b]y 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.” For example, Kavanaugh noted, under the court’s new test, the wetlands on the other side of levees on the Mississippi River will not be covered by the CWA, even though they “are often an important part of the flood-control project” for the river. Moreover, Kavanaugh added, the court’s new test “is sufficiently novel and vague” that it will create precisely the kind of regulatory uncertainty that the majority criticized.

Instead, Kavanaugh would adopt a more expansive test, under which the CWA would apply to wetlands that are either next to a larger body of water or separated from such a body of water by a man-made or natural barrier, such as a dike or a beach dune. Because the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot “do not fall into either of those categories,” Kavanaugh agreed that they would still not be covered by the CWA.

Kagan also wrote a brief opinion of her own, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, in which she criticized what she characterized as “the Court’s appointment of itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy.” In her view, Congress deliberately drafted the CWA with a broad reach to “address a problem of ‘crisis proportions.’” Although the majority disagrees with that decision, she wrote, it cannot “rewrite Congress’s plain instructions because they go further than” the court would like. But that is precisely what the majority did here, she concluded, just as it did last year when it curtailed the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

No, it doesn’t.

1. All nine justices agreed that EPA overreached in regulating under the CWA the activity of the Sacket family.

2. All nine justices agreed that the existing test for applicability of the CWA’s “adjacent” language needed to scrapped.

3. 5 justices agreed that “adjacent”would mean waters that are “adjoining” navigable waters. 4 justices said this new understanding went too far in the other direction and adjoining means something different from adjacent under the CWA.

No matter which combo of 5 justices you put together, they agree that EPA went too far in this particular case. The only question was how far to dial the EPA back.

Imagine a scale of 1-10 with EPA interpreting CWA allowing it to regulate at a level 10 (maximum). All 9 said level 10 is beyond what CWA authorizes. The 5 controlling justices dialed EPA back to 5, while the 4 concurring justices may have dialed EPA back to 8. Either way, EPA’s authority was going to be significantly curtailed by this case, it was only a matter of how significantly.

Today is a great day and if people want EPA to regulate at a level 10, they can go through the political process of giving the EPA that authority.

On to the demise of Chevron deference next!

You're cheering on pollution? Yikes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Administrative agency over reaches and gets slapped back 9-0. No shock here.

Chevron deference is next.

It was 5-4.

It was 9-0 in concluding that EPA overreached with respect to the litigants of the case. It was 9-0 to scrap the existing test used by EPA as an overreach. It was 5-4 on which test would replace the now defunct test.

From SCOTUSblog.com

The above really misrepresents the ruling

…Four justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – agreed that the CWA does not apply to the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot, but they disagreed with the majority’s reasoning. In an opinion joined by the three liberal justices, Kavanaugh contended that “[b]y 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.” For example, Kavanaugh noted, under the court’s new test, the wetlands on the other side of levees on the Mississippi River will not be covered by the CWA, even though they “are often an important part of the flood-control project” for the river. Moreover, Kavanaugh added, the court’s new test “is sufficiently novel and vague” that it will create precisely the kind of regulatory uncertainty that the majority criticized.

Instead, Kavanaugh would adopt a more expansive test, under which the CWA would apply to wetlands that are either next to a larger body of water or separated from such a body of water by a man-made or natural barrier, such as a dike or a beach dune. Because the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot “do not fall into either of those categories,” Kavanaugh agreed that they would still not be covered by the CWA.

Kagan also wrote a brief opinion of her own, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, in which she criticized what she characterized as “the Court’s appointment of itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy.” In her view, Congress deliberately drafted the CWA with a broad reach to “address a problem of ‘crisis proportions.’” Although the majority disagrees with that decision, she wrote, it cannot “rewrite Congress’s plain instructions because they go further than” the court would like. But that is precisely what the majority did here, she concluded, just as it did last year when it curtailed the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

No, it doesn’t.

1. All nine justices agreed that EPA overreached in regulating under the CWA the activity of the Sacket family.

2. All nine justices agreed that the existing test for applicability of the CWA’s “adjacent” language needed to scrapped.

3. 5 justices agreed that “adjacent”would mean waters that are “adjoining” navigable waters. 4 justices said this new understanding went too far in the other direction and adjoining means something different from adjacent under the CWA.

No matter which combo of 5 justices you put together, they agree that EPA went too far in this particular case. The only question was how far to dial the EPA back.

Imagine a scale of 1-10 with EPA interpreting CWA allowing it to regulate at a level 10 (maximum). All 9 said level 10 is beyond what CWA authorizes. The 5 controlling justices dialed EPA back to 5, while the 4 concurring justices may have dialed EPA back to 8. Either way, EPA’s authority was going to be significantly curtailed by this case, it was only a matter of how significantly.

Today is a great day and if people want EPA to regulate at a level 10, they can go through the political process of giving the EPA that authority.

On to the demise of Chevron deference next!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Administrative agency over reaches and gets slapped back 9-0. No shock here.

Chevron deference is next.

It was 5-4.

It was 9-0 in concluding that EPA overreached with respect to the litigants of the case. It was 9-0 to scrap the existing test used by EPA as an overreach. It was 5-4 on which test would replace the now defunct test.

From SCOTUSblog.com

The above really misrepresents the ruling

…Four justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – agreed that the CWA does not apply to the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot, but they disagreed with the majority’s reasoning. In an opinion joined by the three liberal justices, Kavanaugh contended that “[b]y 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.” For example, Kavanaugh noted, under the court’s new test, the wetlands on the other side of levees on the Mississippi River will not be covered by the CWA, even though they “are often an important part of the flood-control project” for the river. Moreover, Kavanaugh added, the court’s new test “is sufficiently novel and vague” that it will create precisely the kind of regulatory uncertainty that the majority criticized.

Instead, Kavanaugh would adopt a more expansive test, under which the CWA would apply to wetlands that are either next to a larger body of water or separated from such a body of water by a man-made or natural barrier, such as a dike or a beach dune. Because the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot “do not fall into either of those categories,” Kavanaugh agreed that they would still not be covered by the CWA.

Kagan also wrote a brief opinion of her own, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, in which she criticized what she characterized as “the Court’s appointment of itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy.” In her view, Congress deliberately drafted the CWA with a broad reach to “address a problem of ‘crisis proportions.’” Although the majority disagrees with that decision, she wrote, it cannot “rewrite Congress’s plain instructions because they go further than” the court would like. But that is precisely what the majority did here, she concluded, just as it did last year when it curtailed the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

No, it doesn’t.

1. All nine justices agreed that EPA overreached in regulating under the CWA the activity of the Sacket family.

2. All nine justices agreed that the existing test for applicability of the CWA’s “adjacent” language needed to scrapped.

3. 5 justices agreed that “adjacent”would mean waters that are “adjoining” navigable waters. 4 justices said this new understanding went too far in the other direction and adjoining means something different from adjacent under the CWA.

No matter which combo of 5 justices you put together, they agree that EPA went too far in this particular case. The only question was how far to dial the EPA back.

Imagine a scale of 1-10 with EPA interpreting CWA allowing it to regulate at a level 10 (maximum). All 9 said level 10 is beyond what CWA authorizes. The 5 controlling justices dialed EPA back to 5, while the 4 concurring justices may have dialed EPA back to 8. Either way, EPA’s authority was going to be significantly curtailed by this case, it was only a matter of how significantly.

Today is a great day and if people want EPA to regulate at a level 10, they can go through the political process of giving the EPA that authority.

On to the demise of Chevron deference next!

Congress already did give EPA that authority.

It is a grand failure of logic and justice for to address overreach in one narrow case to result in removing EPA’s jurisdiction over protecting millions of acres of wet lands.

That is akin to punishing someone caught shoplifting with first degree murder charges and sentencing them to death row.

Further agree with Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson, that it is unethical and poor executive governance for “the Court’s appointment of itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy.”

Agree with the female Justices that “Congress deliberately drafted the CWA with a broad reach to “address a problem of ‘crisis proportions.’” Although the majority disagrees with that decision, she wrote, it cannot “rewrite Congress’s plain instructions because they go further than” the court would like. But that is precisely what the majority did here, she concluded, just as it did last year when it curtailed the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Supreme Court precedents are made on individual cases. No matter how you cut it, the EPA’s authority was going to be materially whacked today. So, clearly, Congress did not give EPA the authority it claimed—9 justices just said so! Perhaps it defies logic that a simple case about a residential lot cost EPA a lot more authority, but then again, EPA could have restrained itself and never seen a courtroom to begin with. The fault lies not with the judges but with those who violated the law to begin with.

Thus, the remaining question was what actual authority did Congress give EPA and that is where the 5-4 split comes in. It boiled down to what does the adjective “adjacent” mean?

Five justices said that adjacent means continually connected to (a more literal reading do the word). Four justices said that adjacent means something broader than the literal meaning, but still not what EPA claimed adjacent means.

Adjacent, obviously, has some ambiguity and subjectivity to it. Is your neighbor three houses down from you adjacent? Not in a literal reading of the word, but yes under an expansive reading of the word.

By definition, reasonable minds can disagree as to what exactly is meant by a word that is ambiguous and subjective. Either way, it is always a good thing when the administrative state gets brushed back for aggressive interpretation of words. The issue properly goes back to where it belongs: the hands of the legislature.

If the American people want the EPA to have expansive regulatory powers, then their representatives can CLEARLY give the EPA that power.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Administrative agency over reaches and gets slapped back 9-0. No shock here.

Chevron deference is next.

It was 5-4.

It was 9-0 in concluding that EPA overreached with respect to the litigants of the case. It was 9-0 to scrap the existing test used by EPA as an overreach. It was 5-4 on which test would replace the now defunct test.

From SCOTUSblog.com

The above really misrepresents the ruling

…Four justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – agreed that the CWA does not apply to the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot, but they disagreed with the majority’s reasoning. In an opinion joined by the three liberal justices, Kavanaugh contended that “[b]y 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.” For example, Kavanaugh noted, under the court’s new test, the wetlands on the other side of levees on the Mississippi River will not be covered by the CWA, even though they “are often an important part of the flood-control project” for the river. Moreover, Kavanaugh added, the court’s new test “is sufficiently novel and vague” that it will create precisely the kind of regulatory uncertainty that the majority criticized.

Instead, Kavanaugh would adopt a more expansive test, under which the CWA would apply to wetlands that are either next to a larger body of water or separated from such a body of water by a man-made or natural barrier, such as a dike or a beach dune. Because the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot “do not fall into either of those categories,” Kavanaugh agreed that they would still not be covered by the CWA.

Kagan also wrote a brief opinion of her own, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, in which she criticized what she characterized as “the Court’s appointment of itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy.” In her view, Congress deliberately drafted the CWA with a broad reach to “address a problem of ‘crisis proportions.’” Although the majority disagrees with that decision, she wrote, it cannot “rewrite Congress’s plain instructions because they go further than” the court would like. But that is precisely what the majority did here, she concluded, just as it did last year when it curtailed the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

No, it doesn’t.

1. All nine justices agreed that EPA overreached in regulating under the CWA the activity of the Sacket family.

2. All nine justices agreed that the existing test for applicability of the CWA’s “adjacent” language needed to scrapped.

3. 5 justices agreed that “adjacent”would mean waters that are “adjoining” navigable waters. 4 justices said this new understanding went too far in the other direction and adjoining means something different from adjacent under the CWA.

No matter which combo of 5 justices you put together, they agree that EPA went too far in this particular case. The only question was how far to dial the EPA back.

Imagine a scale of 1-10 with EPA interpreting CWA allowing it to regulate at a level 10 (maximum). All 9 said level 10 is beyond what CWA authorizes. The 5 controlling justices dialed EPA back to 5, while the 4 concurring justices may have dialed EPA back to 8. Either way, EPA’s authority was going to be significantly curtailed by this case, it was only a matter of how significantly.

Today is a great day and if people want EPA to regulate at a level 10, they can go through the political process of giving the EPA that authority.

On to the demise of Chevron deference next!

Congress already did give EPA that authority.

It is a grand failure of logic and justice for to address overreach in one narrow case to result in removing EPA’s jurisdiction over protecting millions of acres of wet lands.

That is akin to punishing someone caught shoplifting with first degree murder charges and sentencing them to death row.

Further agree with Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson, that it is unethical and poor executive governance for “the Court’s appointment of itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy.”

Agree with the female Justices that “Congress deliberately drafted the CWA with a broad reach to “address a problem of ‘crisis proportions.’” Although the majority disagrees with that decision, she wrote, it cannot “rewrite Congress’s plain instructions because they go further than” the court would like. But that is precisely what the majority did here, she concluded, just as it did last year when it curtailed the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Administrative agency over reaches and gets slapped back 9-0. No shock here.

Chevron deference is next.

It was 5-4.

It was 9-0 in concluding that EPA overreached with respect to the litigants of the case. It was 9-0 to scrap the existing test used by EPA as an overreach. It was 5-4 on which test would replace the now defunct test.

From SCOTUSblog.com

The above really misrepresents the ruling

…Four justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – agreed that the CWA does not apply to the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot, but they disagreed with the majority’s reasoning. In an opinion joined by the three liberal justices, Kavanaugh contended that “[b]y 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.” For example, Kavanaugh noted, under the court’s new test, the wetlands on the other side of levees on the Mississippi River will not be covered by the CWA, even though they “are often an important part of the flood-control project” for the river. Moreover, Kavanaugh added, the court’s new test “is sufficiently novel and vague” that it will create precisely the kind of regulatory uncertainty that the majority criticized.

Instead, Kavanaugh would adopt a more expansive test, under which the CWA would apply to wetlands that are either next to a larger body of water or separated from such a body of water by a man-made or natural barrier, such as a dike or a beach dune. Because the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot “do not fall into either of those categories,” Kavanaugh agreed that they would still not be covered by the CWA.

Kagan also wrote a brief opinion of her own, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, in which she criticized what she characterized as “the Court’s appointment of itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy.” In her view, Congress deliberately drafted the CWA with a broad reach to “address a problem of ‘crisis proportions.’” Although the majority disagrees with that decision, she wrote, it cannot “rewrite Congress’s plain instructions because they go further than” the court would like. But that is precisely what the majority did here, she concluded, just as it did last year when it curtailed the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

No, it doesn’t.

1. All nine justices agreed that EPA overreached in regulating under the CWA the activity of the Sacket family.

2. All nine justices agreed that the existing test for applicability of the CWA’s “adjacent” language needed to scrapped.

3. 5 justices agreed that “adjacent”would mean waters that are “adjoining” navigable waters. 4 justices said this new understanding went too far in the other direction and adjoining means something different from adjacent under the CWA.

No matter which combo of 5 justices you put together, they agree that EPA went too far in this particular case. The only question was how far to dial the EPA back.

Imagine a scale of 1-10 with EPA interpreting CWA allowing it to regulate at a level 10 (maximum). All 9 said level 10 is beyond what CWA authorizes. The 5 controlling justices dialed EPA back to 5, while the 4 concurring justices may have dialed EPA back to 8. Either way, EPA’s authority was going to be significantly curtailed by this case, it was only a matter of how significantly.

Today is a great day and if people want EPA to regulate at a level 10, they can go through the political process of giving the EPA that authority.

On to the demise of Chevron deference next!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Administrative agency over reaches and gets slapped back 9-0. No shock here.

Chevron deference is next.

It was 5-4.

It was 9-0 in concluding that EPA overreached with respect to the litigants of the case. It was 9-0 to scrap the existing test used by EPA as an overreach. It was 5-4 on which test would replace the now defunct test.

From SCOTUSblog.com

The above really misrepresents the ruling

…Four justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – agreed that the CWA does not apply to the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot, but they disagreed with the majority’s reasoning. In an opinion joined by the three liberal justices, Kavanaugh contended that “[b]y 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.” For example, Kavanaugh noted, under the court’s new test, the wetlands on the other side of levees on the Mississippi River will not be covered by the CWA, even though they “are often an important part of the flood-control project” for the river. Moreover, Kavanaugh added, the court’s new test “is sufficiently novel and vague” that it will create precisely the kind of regulatory uncertainty that the majority criticized.

Instead, Kavanaugh would adopt a more expansive test, under which the CWA would apply to wetlands that are either next to a larger body of water or separated from such a body of water by a man-made or natural barrier, such as a dike or a beach dune. Because the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot “do not fall into either of those categories,” Kavanaugh agreed that they would still not be covered by the CWA.

Kagan also wrote a brief opinion of her own, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, in which she criticized what she characterized as “the Court’s appointment of itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy.” In her view, Congress deliberately drafted the CWA with a broad reach to “address a problem of ‘crisis proportions.’” Although the majority disagrees with that decision, she wrote, it cannot “rewrite Congress’s plain instructions because they go further than” the court would like. But that is precisely what the majority did here, she concluded, just as it did last year when it curtailed the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Administrative agency over reaches and gets slapped back 9-0. No shock here.

Chevron deference is next.

It was 5-4.

It was 9-0 in concluding that EPA overreached with respect to the litigants of the case. It was 9-0 to scrap the existing test used by EPA as an overreach. It was 5-4 on which test would replace the now defunct test.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Administrative agency over reaches and gets slapped back 9-0. No shock here.

Chevron deference is next.

It was 5-4.

Anonymous wrote:It’s a good thing West Virginia is so environmentally conscious and would never allow contaminates to get into the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Anonymous wrote:Administrative agency over reaches and gets slapped back 9-0. No shock here.

Chevron deference is next.

Anonymous wrote:Reproductive rights? What does abortion have to with reproduction?