EPA vs Supreme Court

EPA vs Supreme Court

Three years into the establishment of a Republican supermajority in the Supreme Court, significant shifts in environmental law have occurred, favoring conservative interests.

In May 2023, the Court ruled in favor of Idaho landowners in Sackett v. EPA, shifting oversight under the Clean Water Act, consequently reducing protections for wetlands and streams. We note that this decision reflects a broader trend reversing the Chevron doctrine, which grants federal agencies latitude in interpreting ambiguous laws, potentially limiting their regulatory authority.

This ruling marked a departure from a precedent set by former Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion, which had established the standard of evaluating wetlands' coverage under the 1972 Clean Water Act based on a "significant nexus" to larger waterways. Critics of Kennedy's opinion argued that it was ambiguous and impractical. By rejecting Kennedy's standard, the Supreme Court addressed concerns regarding regulatory clarity and established a stricter interpretation of federal jurisdiction over wetlands, bolstering property rights in the process.

Sakett vs EPA

The pivotal Sackett ruling raised questions about the extent of federal protections for water bodies, leading to prolonged litigation and regulatory confusion.

Specifically, the Supreme Court sided with an Idaho couple, Chantell and Michael Sackett, who aimed to construct a house near Priest Lake in Idaho's panhandle. The Sacketts contested federal officials' designation of a wetland area on their property, which required them to obtain a permit before proceeding with construction. In a narrow 5-4 decision, articulated by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court established that wetlands are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act only if they possess a "continuous surface connection" to larger bodies of water that are already regulated. Notably, the Sacketts' property lacked such a connection, leading to the conclusion that it did not fall under the Act's jurisdiction.Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

However, amidst these shifts, there have been instances of victories for environmental advocates, particularly at the state level. Cases such as Held v. Montana have seen state courts affirming the rights of young people by acknowledging the climate impacts of fossil fuels, demonstrating a counterbalance to federal decisions. Additionally, the Supreme Court's recognition of state environmental laws, as seen in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, suggests a willingness to uphold robust environmental protections at the state level, despite conservative leanings.

12 States have already challenged the Chevron Doctrine

Looking ahead, the Supreme Court's pending decision on the Chevron Doctrine and other upcoming cases will likely continue to shape the landscape of environmental law and regulation, with potential implications for the Biden administration's environmental agenda and regulatory efforts…