9-0! Supreme Court Strikes Blow Against EPA and Biden’s Climate Hoax Agenda

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court has dealt a significant blow to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by limiting the extensive powers the agency had claimed under the Clean Water Act. The nation's highest court has reined in the alleged authority of the EPA to regulate water pollution, specifically stating that the Clean Water Act does not grant the agency the power to regulate discharges into certain wetlands near bodies of water.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing on behalf of the majority of five justices, pointed out that the scope of the Clean Water Act is notoriously ambiguous. He expressed concern that any piece of land that is wet for part of the year can be classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the act. This broad interpretation allows the agency to exercise undue control over property owners who wish to construct homes or engage in other activities on their land, subjecting them to the agency's discretion.

Justice Kavanaugh joined three liberal justices in issuing a concurring opinion, arguing that the court's decision would undermine the EPA's ability to combat pollution. He emphasized that narrowing the act's coverage of wetlands to only those that directly adjoin bodies of water would exclude previously regulated adjacent wetlands, with potential negative consequences for water quality and flood control in the United States.

This ruling follows a previous decision that limited the EPA's authority to address climate change under the Clean Air Act. Justice Elena Kagan, in a separate concurring opinion, drew parallels between the two cases and criticized the court for assuming the role of the national decision-maker on environmental policy. Kagan argued that the majority's approach hinders the EPA's ability to effectively regulate adjacent wetlands, just as it hindered the agency's efforts to address power plant emissions in combating climate change.

The case that prompted this ruling, Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, involved an Idaho couple, Michael and Chantell Sackett, who wanted to construct a house on a residential lot near Priest Lake. The EPA ordered the couple to halt their construction activities and restore the property, threatening them with substantial fines. In response, the Sacketts filed a lawsuit against the agency, leading to a dispute about the timeliness of the lawsuit that eventually reached the Supreme Court in an earlier appeal.

Justice Alito, in a concurring opinion during the earlier appeal, had expressed concerns about the excessive power granted to the EPA by the Clean Water Act. He criticized the ambiguity surrounding the act's reach and argued that any land that is intermittently wet throughout the year risks being classified as wetlands at the discretion of the agency.

Furthermore, in March, the State of Texas successfully blocked the Biden administration's Clean Water Act rule in federal court. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton celebrated this victory, emphasizing that the rule imposed a leftist environmental agenda on the state, burdening it with new regulations and oppressive economic costs. Paxton had filed a complaint against the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, challenging the Biden administration's revision of the "waters of the United States" rule. The lawsuit argues that the Federal Agencies exceeded their constitutional authority and intruded on state sovereignty and individual liberties by expanding their power beyond the scope defined by Congress in the Clean Water Act. It also highlights the lack of clarity in the Final Rule, leaving individuals subject to an expensive, vague, and arbitrary analysis or facing severe penalties.

Paxton's legal complaint references the Supreme Court's decision in Rapanos v. United States, which rejected the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' assertion of expanded authority over non-navigable, intrastate waters with no significant connection to navigable, interstate waters.

The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers announced a final "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States'" rule in December 2022. The rule aimed to establish a clear definition of "waters of the United States" to reduce regulatory uncertainty, protect public health, and support economic opportunities. The agencies claimed that the rule restored essential water protections in place prior to 2015, while providing greater certainty for farmers, ranchers, and landowners.

Attorney General Paxton, in a press release in February, argued that the Clean Water Act was being exploited to exert federal control over states like Texas. He emphasized that the rule change represented an unconstitutional overreach and expressed confidence that it would not survive legal challenges. Paxton urged the court to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent the change in the definition from taking effect until the case was decided.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court's recent ruling renders the EPA's rule obsolete, significantly curtailing the agency's powers and hindering the climate change agenda pursued by the Biden administration.