sackett v EPA

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">preaa fail</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/national-tv-news-covered-supreme-court-decision-gut-clean-water-act-only-21-mins">
</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/national-tv-news-covered-supreme-court-decision-gut-clean-water-act-only-21-mins">https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/national-tv-news-covered-supreme-court-decision-gut-clean-water-act-only-21-mins</a></font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">confuses adjoin and adjacent? brett gets ecosys services! reverse 9th</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf">
</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">MICHAEL SACKETT, ET UX., PETITIONERS v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT [May 25, 2023] </font></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.</span> This case concerns a nagging question about the outer reaches of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the principal federal law regulating water pollution in the United States.1 By all accounts, the Act has been a great success. Before its enactment in 1972, many of the Nation’s rivers, lakes, and streams were severely polluted, and existing federal legislation had proved to be inadequate. <b>Today, many formerly fetid bodies of water are safe for the use</b> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">and enjoyment of the people of this country. There is, however, an unfortunate footnote to this success story: the outer boundaries of the Act’s geographical reach have been uncertain from the start. The Act applies to “the waters of the United States,” but what does that phrase mean</span>?<b> Does the term encompass any backyard that is soggy enough for some minimum period of time</b>? Does it reach “mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, [or] playa lakes?”2<b> How about ditches, swimming pools, and puddles?</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">—————— 1 86 Stat. 816, as amended, 33 U. S. C. §1251 et seq. 2 40 CFR §230.3(s)(3) (2008)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">p 11</font></div><div>away”).

More recently, the agencies have engaged in a flurry of

rulemaking defining “the waters of the United States.” In

a 2015 rule, they offered a muscular approach that would

subject “the vast majority of the nation’s water features” to

a case-by-case jurisdictional analysis.11 Although the rule

listed a few examples of “waters” that were excluded from

regulation like “[p]uddles” and “swimming pools,” it categorically covered other waters and wetlands, including any

within 1,500 feet of interstate or traditional navigable waters. 80 Fed. Reg. 37116–37117. And it subjected a wider

range of other waters, including any within 4,000 feet of indirect tributaries of interstate or traditional navigable waters, to a case-specific determination for significant nexus.

Ibid.

The agencies repealed this sweeping rule in 2019. 84

Fed. Reg. 56626. Shortly afterwards, they replaced it with

a narrower definition that limited jurisdiction to traditional

navigable waters and their tributaries, lakes, and “adjacent” wetlands. 85 Fed. Reg. 22340 (2020). They also narrowed the definition of “[a]djacent,” limiting it to wetlands

that “[a]but” covered waters, are flooded by those waters, or

are separated from those waters by features like berms or

barriers. Ibid. This rule too did not last. After granting

the EPA’s voluntary motion to remand, a District Court vacated the rule. See Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. EPA, 557

F. Supp. 3d 949, 957 (D Ariz. 2021).

The agencies recently promulgated yet another rule attempting to define waters of the United States. 88 Fed.

Reg. 3004 (2023) (to be codified in 40 CFR §120.2). Under

that broader rule, traditional navigable waters, interstate

waters, and the territorial seas, as well as their tributaries

and adjacent wetlands, are waters of the United States. 88...</div><div>
</div><div>p35</div><div>JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins,

concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion in full. The Clean Water Act

(CWA) confines the Federal Government’s jurisdiction to

“‘navigable waters,’” defined as “the waters of the United

States.” 33 U. S. C. §§1311(a), 1362(7), (12). And the Court

correctly holds that the term “waters” reaches “‘only those

relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing

bodies of water “‘forming geographic[al] features’” that are

described in ordinary parlance as “streams, oceans, rivers,

and lakes.”’” Ante, at 14 (quoting Rapanos v. United States,

547 U. S. 715, 739 (2006) (plurality opinion)). It also correctly holds that for a wetland to fall within this definition,

it must share a “‘continuous surface connection to bodies

that are “waters of the United States” in their own right’”

such that “‘there is no clear demarcation between “waters”

and wetlands.’” Ante, at 21 (quoting Rapanos, 547 U. S., at

742 (plurality opinion)).

However, like the Rapanos plurality before it, the Court

focuses only on the term “waters”; it does not determine the

extent to which the CWA’s other jurisdictional terms—

“navigable” and “of the United States”—limit the reach of

the statute. Ante, at 14–18; Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 731 (plurality opinion). I write separately to pick up where the</div><div>... </div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mma 6 23</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><div class="paragraph paragraph--type--stories-text paragraph--view-mode--editorial" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="fancy-elems-wrapper field field--name-field-stories-text-formatted field--type-text-long field--label-hidden fielditem" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Right-wing media are attempting to discredit mainstream coverage and reactions around the Supreme Court’s recent decision to limit bodies of water protected under the Clean Water Act. </font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">On May 25, the <a href="https://www.vox.com/2023/5/25/23737426/supreme-court-clean-water-act-epa-pollution-wetlands-sackett-alito" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">Supreme Court</a> ruled unanimously in favor of wealthy Idaho couple Michael and Chantell Sackett in <span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><b>Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency</b></span>, after a 14-year <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Sackett_v.Environmental_Protection_Agency(2022)#Background" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">legal battle</a> in which they fought to do construction near protected wetlands without a permit.</span> <b>All nine justices ultimately agreed they could do so, however, their reasoning differed and concurring opinion on the scope of the case was split 5-4.</b> </font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Five conservative justices ruling for the majority decided that definitions previously laid out in the 51-year-old Clean Water Act were the problem, considerably narrowing the scope of which bodies of water must be protected</b>. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">According to the environmental law nonprofit <a href="https://earthjustice.org/article/what-does-sackett-v-epa-mean-for-clean-water" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">EarthJustice</a>, which filed an<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-454/228237/20220617081619977_21-454%20Amicus%20Menominee%20Indian%20Tribe%20Of%20Wisconsin.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;"> amicus brief</a> in the case, the new decision means that “as many as half of the 118 million acres of wetlands in the U.S. are no longer protected by the Clean Water Act, embracing the decades-long demands of mining companies, the fossil fuel industry, reckless developers, and other big polluters.” </span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mainstream <a href="https://www.vox.com/2023/5/25/23737426/supreme-court-clean-water-act-epa-pollution-wetlands-sackett-alito" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">media</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/25/supreme-court-clean-water-act/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">coverage</a> of the ruling rightfully <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-25/supreme-court-rules-for-landowners-limits-us-clean-water-act" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">highlighted</a> this serious outcome. Democratic lawmakers including Sens. <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1661764643692462082?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1661764643692462082%7Ctwgr%5E35cf97b615d96679fc982020cefab521092d7ef5%7Ctwcon%5Es1&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Frebeccadowns%2F2023%2F05%2F25%2Fdemocrats-are-not-reacting-well-to-supreme-court-overturning-biden-administrations-overreach-n2623717" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">Chuck Schumer</a> (D-NY) and <a href="https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1662189961502703622" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">Elizabeth Warren</a> (D-MA) called out the decision’s radical implications and suggested it was driven by a partisan conservative agenda. Other <a href="https://freshwater-science.org/news/sfs-response-scotus-ruling-sackett-v-epa" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">experts</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/ArielWittenberg/status/1661750753441251328" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">pointed out</a> that the majority decision <a href="https://twitter.com/AnnaPuchkoff/status/1662192397718294528?s=20" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">ignores</a> the best available science on how pollutants move through ecosystems. </font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In response, right-wing media celebrated the decision and slammed its critics, claiming that the unanimous ruling was intentionally being ignored to mislead the public and fit the narrative that conservative, </span>Trump-appointed justices were making controversial decisions. In reality, the outcome of <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Sackett v. EPA</em> was nothing if not controversial. <b>Even Trump-appointed Justice <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">Brett Kavanaugh</a> opted to side with the court’s three liberal justices, saying the majority’s decision to redefine what is protected under the Clean Water Act went against scientific evidence.</b></font></p></div></div><div class="paragraph paragraph--type--stories-text paragraph--view-mode--editorial" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="fancy-elems-wrapper field field--name-field-stories-text-formatted field--type-text-long field--label-hidden fielditem" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 1rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right-wing media attacks focus on the majority’s decision to gut the Clean Water Act</font></h2></div></div><div class="paragraph paragraph--type--stories-text paragraph--view-mode--editorial" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="fancy-elems-wrapper field field--name-field-stories-text-formatted field--type-text-long field--label-hidden fielditem" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right-wing media attempted to expose those who called out the very real impacts of gutting the Clean Water Act and implied that the only decision that mattered — and the only one that should be publicized — was the unanimous ruling in favor of the Sacketts. Suggesting otherwise, according to them, was a gross misrepresentation of the ruling. </font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">These allegations started on May 25 in response to Schumer’s <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1661764643692462082?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1661764643692462082%7Ctwgr%5E35cf97b615d96679fc982020cefab521092d7ef5%7Ctwcon%5Es1&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Frebeccadowns%2F2023%2F05%2F25%2Fdemocrats-are-not-reacting-well-to-supreme-court-overturning-biden-administrations-overreach-n2623717" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">tweet</a> attacking the “MAGA Supreme Court” for the decision to “erode our country’s environmental laws,” adding that “this ruling will mean more polluted water, and more destruction of wetlands</span>.” Twitter users accused Schumer of lying by highlighting the unanimous ruling in favor of the Sacketts, and even <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">added a community note clarifying the decision</span>. Echoing the online backlash, right-wing media including <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">Fox News and Newsmax piled on Schumer as well.</span></font></p><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; clear: both; list-style: none; padding: 0px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding-left: 3rem; position: relative;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">Trending Politics owner Collin Rugg: “I was today years old when I found out Ketanji Brown Jackson was a MAGA Republican.” </strong>[Twitter, <a href="https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1663237300795629569?s=20" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">5/29/23</a>]<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /> </font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding-left: 3rem; position: relative;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">Conservative precious metals investment influencer account Wall Street Silver pushed back on Schumer’s tweet: “It was a 9-0 unanimous opinion.” </strong>[Twitter, <a href="https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1662446951034494976?s=20" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">5/27/23</a>]<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /> </font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding-left: 3rem; position: relative;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">A Daily Wire op-ed claimed that Schumer labeling the decision as “MAGA” was a “smear” against the Supreme Court:</span> </strong>“Democrats attempt to smear anybody who goes against their agenda as a ‘MAGA’ extremist — even if those individuals are liberal members of the United States Supreme Court.” [Daily Wire, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/huh-chuck-schumer-slams-maga-supreme-court-after-a-unanimous-decision?%3Futm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwnewstwitter" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">5/27/23</a>]  <br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /> </font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding-left: 3rem; position: relative;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Right-wing comedian Tom Shillue, filling in for Fox’s Greg Gutfeld, </span>said the decision was “about as MAGA as a tofu hotdog with a Bud Light." </strong>“Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer took time out from never having a real job and slammed yesterday's Supreme Court ruling,” Shillue said. “Shockingly, Schumer described the decision as the work of a MAGA court. This despite the fact the decision was 9-0. Yeah, that’s MAGA — that’s about as MAGA as a tofu hotdog with a Bud Light.” [Fox News, <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Gutfeld!</em>, <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/media/4006380" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">5/26/23</a>]<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /> </font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding-left: 3rem; position: relative;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">Shillue later added that “there are plenty of liberals still on the court,” while Fox News contributor Kat Timpf asked if Schumer even bothered to look at the ruling. </strong>“It's just ‘MAGA’ and it doesn’t even make any sense,” Timpf said. “I mean, you know that. Did he not even bother to look at the 9-0?" [Fox News, <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Gutfeld!</em>, <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/media/4006381" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">5/26/23</a>]<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /> </font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding-left: 3rem; position: relative;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Newsmax</span> co-host Bianca de la Garza dismissed Schumer’s comment and the 5-4 split. </strong>“To be very clear, all nine judges unanimously agreed that the EPA overstepped its authorities,” she said. “I guess any reason to throw in MAGA, he’ll take.” [Newsmax, <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">John Bachman Now</em>, <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/media/4006378" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">5/26/23</a>]<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /> </font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding-left: 3rem; position: relative;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Fox News host Sean Hannity: “IT WAS UNANIMOUS, CHUCK! ‘All 9 judges agreed that the EPA overstepped its authority and that the plaintiffs’ property should not be subject to EPA regulation</span>.’” </strong>[Twitter, <a href="https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/1662081586974556161?s=20" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">5/26/23</a>] <br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /> </font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding-left: 3rem; position: relative;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Fox Business </span>host Liz MacDonald accused Schumer of politicizing the ruling:</strong> “This was a unanimous ruling, so that means Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, Sonya Sotomayor joined in this unanimous ruling. So are they MAGA too? Why is this politicizing everything?” [Fox Business, <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">The Evening Edit</em>,<a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/media/4006375" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;"> 5/26/23</a>]<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /> </font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding-left: 3rem; position: relative;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Townhall </span>accused Democrats of having “grossly misled on the outcome of the case.”</strong> “Democrats are not taking the news well, to the point that they've grossly misled on the outcome of the case,” Townhall wrote. “In a tweet from his official account, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) lamented about how the ‘MAGA Supreme Court is continuing to erode our country's environmental laws,’ despite how, again, it was unanimous.” [Townhall, <a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2023/05/25/democrats-are-not-reacting-well-to-supreme-court-overturning-biden-administrations-overreach-n2623717" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">5/25/23</a>] <br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /> </font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding-left: 3rem; position: relative;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">National Review senior writer Dan McLaughlin</span> mocked Schumer over the 9-0 decision:</strong> “Unanimous SCOTUS decision written by George W. Bush appointee. Outcome joined by GHW Bush appointee, 2d GW Bush appointee, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">2 Obama appointees, & a Biden appointee</span>. The 3 Dems joined a concurring opinion written by a Trump appointee. Chuck Schumer: That's so MAGA!” [Twitter, <a href="https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1661786325735944228" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">5/25/23</a>]<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /> </font></li></ul><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Right-wing media also attacked <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/25/supreme-court-clean-water-act/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">The Washington Post </a>and <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-25/supreme-court-rules-for-landowners-limits-us-clean-water-act" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">Bloomberg</a> for not highlighting the unanimous decision more prominently, or even falsely stated that this was not even mentioned.</font></p><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; clear: both; list-style: none; padding: 0px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding-left: 3rem; position: relative;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">Radio host <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Erick Erickson</span>: “You’d never know from Bloomberg that the decision was unanimous.” </strong>[Twitter, <a href="https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1661877209710075904?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1661877784174632961%7Ctwgr%5E9ee7549948962bbef427e3cc2049bad63f11bf0d%7Ctwcon%5Es3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fhuh-chuck-schumer-slams-maga-supreme-court-after-a-unanimous-decision%3F3Futm_source%3Dtwitterutm_medium%3Dsocialutm_campaign%3Ddwnewstwitter" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">5/25/23</a>]<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /> </font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding-left: 3rem; position: relative;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Red State blog</span>ger known as Bonchie: “This is the first seven paragraphs of the Post's write-up. Can you tell it was actually a 9-0 unanimous decision?”</strong> [Twitter, <a href="https://twitter.com/bonchieredstate/status/1661820426622844928?s=20" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">5/25/23</a>]<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /> </font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding-left: 3rem; position: relative;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">Former New York Post columnist and <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Daily Wire </span>content creator Frank Fleming:</strong> “What the hell is wrong with the Washington Post misleading people like that?” “I have to defend Schumer a bit here,” Fleming wrote. “Everyone is dunking on him for this being a unanimous decision, but the Washington Post article he links doesn't mention that and calls it a 5-4 decision (when actually, it's separate concurring opinions). What the hell is wrong with the Washington Post misleading people like that?” [Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/IMAO/status/1661801254945800193?s=20" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">5/25/23</a>]</font></li></ul></div></div><div class="paragraph paragraph--type--stories-text paragraph--view-mode--editorial" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="fancy-elems-wrapper field field--name-field-stories-text-formatted field--type-text-long field--label-hidden fielditem" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 1rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Why the 5-4 split between the concurring justices matters</font></h2></div></div><div class="paragraph paragraph--type--stories-text paragraph--view-mode--editorial" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="fancy-elems-wrapper field field--name-field-stories-text-formatted field--type-text-long field--label-hidden fielditem" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">It’s true that all nine justices ruled in favor of the Sacketts. Specifically, they found that the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA did not have jurisdiction over this particular property. But despite what right-wing media say, the differences in their reasoning are important.</span> </font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Initially, the Sacketts <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Sackett_v.Environmental_Protection_Agency(2022)#Background" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">filed a lawsuit</a> against the EPA because the agency ordered them to remove sand and gravel fill from the lot where they wanted to build a house, arguing that it was on protected wetlands and they would need to return the area to its natural state. The couple brought the case to the Supreme Court for <a href="https://www.eenews.net/articles/idaho-couple-returns-to-supreme-court-to-wage-new-wotus-war/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">the first time</a> in<b> 2012 after lower courts sided with the EPA, maintaining that the property was subject to the Clean Water Act</b> and the Sacketts did indeed need permits to continue construction. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The Supreme Court at the time ruled in favor of the Sacketts’ right to challenge the EPA’s order.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">Aided by the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cato_Institute" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">Cato Institute</a> and <a href="https://www.energyandpolicy.org/americans-for-prosperity/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">Americans for Prosperity</a>, both of which were founded by the fossil fuel billionaire Koch brothers, as well as other <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sackett-v-environmental-protection-agency/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">industry groups</a>, the Sacketts managed to get their case in front of the Supreme Court for a second ti</span>me. They were represented by the<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 102, 0);"><b> <a href="https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/pacific-legal-foundation/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">Pacific Legal Foundation</a>, </b>which has <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pacific_Legal_Foundation" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">received funding</a> from the fossil fuel industry and its allies and also fought to weaken the Clean Water Act back in 2006.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>This time, five far-right justices didn’t just rule in favor of the Sacketts — they went so far as to adopt the narrowest possible definition of which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act,</b> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">completely changing how the law has functioned for the past 51 years. Kavanaugh, along with three liberal justices, argued that this decision went too far. </span>Though they wrote a concurring opinion, he and three other justices fundamentally disagreed with Justice Samuel Alito’s reading of the law, which would not protect wetlands unless they have a “continuous surface connection” to bodies of water.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);"> </span><b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">Kavanaugh</span> <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">explained</a> why that doesn’t make sense in his concurring opinion (citations omitted):</b></font></p></div></div><blockquote class="block-quote block-quote--collapsable" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="block-quotequote" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 1.5rem;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b><span style="background-color: rgb(239, 243, 247);">“Because of the movement of water between adjacent wetlands and other waters, pollutants in wetlands often end up in adjacent rivers, lakes, a</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">nd other waters.</span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Natural barriers such as berms and dunes do not block all water flow and are in fact evidence of a regular connection between a water and a wetland. … The <b>scientific</b> evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that wetlands separated from covered waters by those kinds of berms or barriers, for example, still play an important role in protecting neighboring and downstream waters, including by filtering pollutants, storing water, and providing flood control. In short, those adjacent wetlands may affect downstream water quality and flood control in many of the same ways that adjoining wetlands can."</span></font></p></div></blockquote><div class="paragraph paragraph--type--stories-text paragraph--view-mode--editorial" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="fancy-elems-wrapper field field--name-field-stories-text-formatted field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Right-wing media’s gripes ignoring the concurring opinion and framing the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling as key to the case are completely bad-faith attempts to gaslight the public into thinking that the decision was less controversial than it actually was</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">. This narrative directly benefits the industries that were so keen to help gut a bedrock environmental law while refusing to accept clear scientific evidence that is inconvenient to their bottom line. As <a href="https://earthjustice.org/feature/sackett-epa-supreme-court-water" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">Earthjustice</a> puts it, the effort was part of “<a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-trump-administrations-new-water-rule/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">a coordinated push by industry polluters</a> that want to blow a hole in the Clean Water Act, bulldoze cherished wetlands, and contaminate the country’s streams with waste from mining, oil and gas, and agro-industrial operations as they see fit, just to <b>maximize their profits.”</b></span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">This isn’t the first time this court has delivered a victory to polluters. <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/facebook-right-leaning-pages-are-dominating-conversation-around-supreme-court-ruling" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">In June 2022</a>, the court’s conservative majority issued a devastating ruling in <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/2/23/22937517/supreme-court-epa-west-virginia-clean-power-plan-climate-change" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; transition: box-shadow 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgba(25, 118, 210, 0.5) 0px -1px 0px inset;">West Virginia v. EPA</a></em> that severely limited the EPA’s power to make power plants cut the toxic pollution that is driving the climate cris</span>is.</font></p></div></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">===</font></div>