"The Supreme Court on Monday appeared reluctant to wrest wetlands permitting power from EPA in a dispute that had been expected to significantly narrow the scope of the Clean Water Act.
During oral arguments in Sackett v. EPA, at least some of the six conservative justices indicated that they were skeptical of arguments from an Idaho couple that the Supreme Court should reach back to its 2006 decision in Rapanos v. United States to apply a more restrictive approach to Clean Water Act jurisdiction penned by the late Justice Antonin Scalia and upend about 50 years of federal practice.
The couple — Michael and Chantell Sackett — argue that Scalia’s approach would finally allow them to build their dream home near Idaho’s Priest Lake — without a costly federal permit.
But conservative justices’ inquiries about the text of the Clean Water Act and practices of prior administrations indicated that the court “is not just reflexively adopting the petitioners’ call for wholesale adoption of the Scalia plurality Rapanos test, or buying the Sacketts’ focus on traditional navigable waters,” said Georgetown University law professor Bill Buzbee in an emailed statement."
Pamela King and Hannah Northey report for E&E News October 3, 2022.
SEE ALSO:
"On New Term’s First Day, Justices Hear Case on E.P.A. Power Over Wetlands" (New York Times)
"Supreme Court Debates Narrowing Protections in Clean Water Act" (Washington Post)
"Supreme Court Weighs Redefining Clean Water Regulations" (The Hill)
"Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Water Rules" (The Hill)
"The Supreme Court Appears Determined To Shrink The Clean Water Act" (Vox)
Advertisement 
