Supreme Court limits federal power over wetlands in favor of property rights
The decision by the court was 9-0 in favor of the plaintiffs, who were blocked by the EPA from building a home on their property near a wetland. The court split, however, 5-4 in its analysis.
The Facts Inside Our Reporter’s Notebook
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of an Idaho couple who wanted to build a house near a lake in a decision that makes it more difficult for the Environmental Protection Agency to police water quality.
The decision by the court was 9-0 in favor of the plaintiffs, Michael and Chantell Sackett, who were blocked by the EPA from building a home on their property near a wetland, according to Fox News.
"However, the court split 5-4 in its analysis of how the federal government should define a water source under the Clean Air Act," according to the outlet.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in the 5-4 split, stating that the Clean Water Act only regulates wetlands that have a "continuous surface connection" to larger bodies of water that are regulated. The Idaho couple do not have such a connection on their property.
Despite the 9-0 decision, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted that "This MAGA Supreme Court is continuing to erode our country's environmental laws," adding "Make no mistake – this ruling will mean more polluted water, and more destruction of wetlands."
Madeleine Hubbard is an international correspondent for Just the News. Follow her on Twitter or Instagram.