LISTEN HERE:
The Biden administration’s policy has been effectively upended by the Supreme Court’s ruling that narrowed the federal government’s authority over regulating bodies of water. The unanimous decision, delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, rejected the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) broad definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS).
The Sacketts, two Idaho residents, had their attempts to build a home near a wetland prohibited years ago by the EPA under the Clean Waters Act (CWA) of 1972, with penalties of over $40,000 per day for non-compliance. The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as ‘waters of the United States’ because they were close to a ditch that fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, arguing that their property was not ‘waters of the United States.’
The Supreme Court’s ruling was a resounding victory for those on the right, with the high court split 5-4 in determining the federal government’s WOTUS definition. According to the ruling, the federal government’s WOTUS definition must be restricted to a water source with a ‘continuous surface connection’ to major bodies of water.
The ruling’s distinction was that wetlands that are distinguishable from otherwise covered ‘waters of the United States’ would substantially broaden the existing statute to define ‘navigable waters’ as ‘waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands’. The decision was welcomed by Republican lawmakers and landowners, as the EPA’s broad definition of WOTUS was seen as an example of federal overreach.
The EPA had announced that they approved the WOTUS regulation on the final working day of 2022. Industry groups, Republican lawmakers, and several states had criticized the regulation as an example of federal overreach and demanded that it be rescinded. In April, a federal judge granted a request from 24 states and several trade groups to pause implementation of the regulation. The House and Senate both approved a regulation rejecting the regulation. The Supreme Court’s ruling on WOTUS is a statement against Biden administration’s attempts at overregulating the lives of American citizens. Senator Shelley Moore Capito, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the court protected America’s farmers, ranchers, builders, and landowners from overreach under the Clean Water Act.
The Western Caucus Chairman, Dan Newhouse, R-Wash, said the court’s decision was in favor of the Constitution, the American people, and our freedoms, and called on the EPA to officially rescind its WOTUS regulation. The Waters Advocacy Coalition, a group representing farmers, applauded the Supreme Court for preserving water protections while delivering clarity for farmers and landowners. The Court’s opinion also upended the Biden Administration’s overreaching WOTUS rule. America’s farmers and job creators can now proceed with more certainty in delivering critical services our economy depends on, from growing healthy foods to building affordable homes and producing domestic energy. The Supreme Court’s verdict was a sharp rebuke of the Biden administration’s overreach and a win for individual freedom.
The Supreme Court’s ruling puts the brakes on the Biden administration’s broad attempts at enacting federal overreach on American citizens. The administration’s attempts to extend the federal government’s power over private land were halted by the Supreme Court’s ruling, with the decision delivering much-needed clarity to landowners and farmers. The ruling puts an end to the EPA’s attempts at expanding the regulation of Waters of the United States, which would have substantially impeded the work of America’s job creators and farmers. This is a major victory for individual freedom, and it protects the American people from overreach under the Clean Power Act.
The Supreme Court has decided on a unanimous 9-0 verdict about the federal government’s WOTUS definition. Justice Samuel Alito administered the verdict, and it was a rejection of the EPA’s broad definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS). The case was regarding two Idaho residents, Michael and Chantell Sackett, who were prohibited from building a wetlands residence years ago by the EPA under the Clean Waters Act (CWA) of 1972. The penalties imposed on non-compliance were more than $40,000 per day. The Supreme Court ruling held that the federal government’s WOTUS definition must be limited to water sources that have networks connecting them to major bodies of water.
The Supreme Court’s decision was an immense triumph for Republicans and landowners. The federal government’s WOTUS definition was disputed by the Supreme Court, with a 5-4 split in determining how to define water sources. The Supreme Court has determined that the federal government’s WOTUS definition must be limited to water sources with a continuous surface connection to major water bodies. The Court emphasized that wetlands that can be distinguished from ‘waters of the United States’ should not be substantially broadened under the existing statute to define ‘navigable waters’ as ‘waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands.’ Republicans and landowners are both celebrating the Supreme Court’s ruling, which they deem as a major triumph.
The EPA approved the WOTUS regulation on the final day of work in 2022; however, industry groups, Republican lawmakers, and a group of states criticized the decision, claiming the WOTUS regulation was a case of federal overreach. In April, a federal judge approved a request from 24 states and various trade groups to pause implementation of the regulation. Moreover, both the House and Senate approved the regulation’s rejection. The Supreme Court’s verdict on WOTUS denoted its opposition to the Biden administration’s efforts at over-regulating the lives of the American people. Senator Shelley Moore Capito, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, noted that the Supreme Court protected America’s farmers, ranchers, builders, and landowners from overreach under the Clean Water Act.
Dan Newhouse, the Western Caucus Chairman, argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of the Constitution, the American people, and freedoms, had implied that the EPA should officially rescind its WOTUS regulation. The Waters Advocacy Coalition, a group representing farmers, praised the Supreme Court’s role in preserving water protections while ensuring clarity for farmers and landowners. America’s farmers and job creators may now proceed with greater clarity in providing essential services that our economy depends on. The Court overturned the Biden Administration’s WOTUS rule, which it deemed as overreaching. Therefore, this decision is a significant step for individual freedom.
The Supreme Court has halted the Biden administration’s attempts at federal overreach over American citizens. The administration’s efforts to extend federal power over private land were quashed by the Supreme Court’s decision, providing clarity to landowners and farmers that they needed. The Supreme Court’s decision has denied the EPA the opportunity to expand the regulation of Waters of the United States, which would have had a significant impact on the work of job creators in America and farmers. The American people are protected from overreach under the Clean Power Act by this heroic landmark task of the Supreme Court.
Justice Samuel Alito delivered the verdict that rejected the EPA’s broad definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS) in a nine-zero unanimous decision by the Supreme Court, which is a significant victory for this conservative demographic. The case concerned Michael and Chantell Sackett, who were prohibited from constructing a wetlands residence years ago by the EPA under the Clean Waters Act (CWA) of 1972. Non-compliance penalties exceeded $40,000 per day. Wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot were classified under ‘waters of the United States’ because of their proximity to a ditch that flowed into a navigable, intrastate lake, Priest Lake. The Sacketts sued, claiming that their property was not ‘waters of the United States.
The Supreme Court’s decision has led to a massive win for Republicans and landowners; the federal government’s WOTUS definition was challenged, with a 5-4 split on how water sources should be defined. The Supreme Court has decided that the federal government’s WOTUS definition should be limited to water sources with a continuous surface connection to significant water bodies. Wetlands that can be differentiated from ‘waters of the United States’ should not be significantly expanded under the existing statute to define ‘navigable waters’ as ‘waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands.’ The Supreme Court’s ruling was much-celebrated with Republicans and landowners.
In a decision that went against the Biden administration’s extensive attempts at federal overreach, the EPA approved the WOTUS regulation on the last working day in December 2022. However, industry groups, Republican lawmakers, and several states opposed the decision and called it a federal overreach. In April, a federal judge honored a request by 24 states and various trade organizations to pause implementation of the WOTUS regulation. Moreover, the House and Senate both passed legislation to reject the regulation. The Supreme Court’s ruling on WOTUS was a clear message to the Biden administration that its attempts to overregulate the lives of millions of Americans are inappropriate.
Dan Newhouse, the Western Caucus Chairman, praised the Supreme Court’s decision, calling it favorable to the American people, the Constitution, and our freedom. He urged the EPA to officially rescind its WOTUS regulation. The Waters Advocacy Coalition, which represents farmers, praised the Supreme Court for protecting water supplies while providing clarity to farmers and landowners. The Supreme Court overturned the Biden Administration’s WOTUS rule, citing an overreach on the part of the federal government. America’s farmers and job creators can now provide necessary services for America’s economy with greater clarity and confidence.
The Supreme Court’s ruling prevented the Biden administration’s attempts at over-regulating Americans. The Supreme Court decision gave landowners and farmers much-needed clarity regarding the regulation of Wetlands of the United States. The Supreme Court’s ruling prohibited the EPA from expanding the regulation of Wetlands of the United States, which would have hindered farmers and job creators in America. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a pivotal moment for Republicans and landowners, who have spent decades fighting WOTUS’s regulatory overreach on private land. The Supreme Court’s landmark achievement protects the American people from overreach under the Clean Power Act.
The Supreme Court’s nine-zero unanimous verdict on the federal government’s definition of WOTUS is a crucial win for this conservative demographic. The case investigated Michael and Chantell Sackett, who were prohibited from constructing a wetlands residence by the EPA under the Clean Waters Act (CWA) of 1972. Wetlands must comply with non-compliance penalties exceeding $40,000 a day. The wetlands on the Sacketts’ land were classified as ‘waters of the United States’ due to their closeness to a navigable intrastate lake, Priest Lake, through a ditch. The Sacketts sued, asserting that their property was not ‘waters of the United States.’
The Supreme Court’s decision represents a significant victory for Republicans and landowners, with a 5-4 split on how water sources should be defined. The court determined that the federal government’s WOTUS should only be relevant to water sources with a continuous surface network connecting them to major water bodies. As the Court wrote, the Wetlands of the United States must not be considerably expanded under the existing statute to define ‘navigable waters’ as ‘waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands.’ Republicans and landowners hailed the Supreme Court’s decision, describing it as a major success.
