In a unanimous decision on Thursday, the US Supreme Court dealt a significant blow to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate wetlands. This ruling represents a setback for President Joe Biden’s climate agenda and is being hailed as a victory for the American people.
The EPA, under Biden’s administration, sought to regulate all puddles and ponds classified as “wetlands” under the Clean Water Act. However, the Supreme Court struck down this expansive interpretation.
The court ruled in favor of Michael and Chantell Sackett, a couple from Idaho who took legal action after the EPA prevented them from building a home on their own land, citing the presence of “wetlands.”
While the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the Sacketts, the reasoning behind the ruling was split 5-4 among the justices.
According to CBS, the high court’s decision limits the EPA’s authority to regulate certain wetlands that qualify as “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. This curtails what was previously seen as a crucial tool in safeguarding waterways from pollution.
Major Biden defeat at the Supreme Court today, with SCOTUS nuking the Biden EPA’s absurd attempt to redefine “waters of the U.S.” to give EPA radical new power to regulate any water anywhere. The judgment was 9-0 (while the opinion itself was 5-4). https://t.co/wbBywrfqic pic.twitter.com/HSO3CXYDSJ— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) May 25, 2023
Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion of the court, finding that the EPA’s interpretation of the wetlands covered by the Clean Water Act was “inconsistent” with the text and structure of the law. The ruling establishes that the law extends solely to “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies of water that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right.”
Although the majority recognized that temporary interruptions between bodies of water covered by the law can occur due to weather and climate events like low tides and dry spells, they emphasized that wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act should otherwise be “indistinguishable” from other regulated waters.
The Supreme Court’s decision overturns a previous ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had sided with the EPA.
In response to the ruling, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer expressed dissatisfaction and falsely claimed that the “MAGA Supreme Court” is eroding the country’s environmental laws.
The impact of this decision reaches beyond the immediate case, as it establishes limitations on the EPA’s jurisdiction over wetlands. The ruling has implications for future environmental regulations and underscores the ongoing debate surrounding the balance between environmental protection and property rights.
