Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency

-

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency

Unbiased Case Analysis:

            Michael and Chantall Sackett bought a piece of property near Priest Lake, Idaho. They wanted to build a home on the property, so they began placing sand and gravel. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency ordered them to stop placing sand and gravel since their lot contained wetlands. Placing sand and gravel without EPA approval would be a violation of the Clean Water Act. The Sacketts challenged the EPA’s order, and the case was eventually brought before the Supreme Court.

The entire Court ruled in favor of Sackett. They believed the Sacketts should not be required to comply with the EPA’s order. However, the Court disagreed on restricting the EPA’s authority. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Sackett and new interpretations of the Clean Water Act. The decision brought restrictions upon the EPA. Specifically, the Court narrowed the definition of “waters” of the United States. Bodies of water protected by the EPA for decades were now left in the care of the states and local governments. Justice Alito authored the majority opinion.

Personal Perspective:

            It is fascinating how the entire Court agreed that the Sacketts should win, but there was bitter disagreement on the case’s implications. The Court’s conservatives used the case as an opportunity to further restrict the EPA’s authority by narrowing the Clean Water Act. Justice Kavanaugh, who traditionally rules conservatively, joined the Court’s liberal members in narrowing EPA’s authority. The liberal members called out the conservative majority and their “manipulation” of their powers.

            I join the Court in agreeing the Sacketts should not comply with the EPA’s order. I do not agree with the Court using this case to further restrict the EPA’s authority. They decided to change the definition of “waters” of the United States for their own subjective reasons. The Clean Water Act has been untouched for decades. Multiple presidents and justices chose not to interfere with it. However, the Court decided to use the Sacketts’ case as an opportunity to change it. The legislative branch should be left to narrow or broaden statutes and the not the Supreme Court.

Media Critique and Analysis:

            Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency received media attention from a variety of outlets. Left leaning outlets such as CNN lamented the Court’s ruling. They focused less on the Sacketts and more on new restrictions on the EPA. They saw it as a major loss for newly unprotected waters of the United States. They focused on the Court’s unusual departure from the longstanding interpretation of the Clean Water Act. Right leaning outlets such as Fox News had a mostly neutral perspective towards the decision. Some attention was brought to how this seems to be a direct jab at President Biden. The Court allegedly made this decision to interfere with Biden’s environmental agenda.

Sources:

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency | Oyez

Supreme Court rolls back federal safeguards for wetlands under Clean Water Act | CNN Politics

Supreme Court narrows scope of Clean Water Act : NPR

Supreme Court delivers blow to key Biden environmental policy | Fox News

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

-
Image
  Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College Unbiased case analysis:             Harvard College uses an admissions process that considers the race of applicants to determine whether they should be accepted or not. This is a common practice for many colleges in the United States. Harvard College was sued by Students for Fair Admissions over their use of affirmative action. Affirmative action is simply an action that helps specific demographic groups due to the United States’ history of discrimination. A district court ruled in favor of Harvard and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Frist Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The case was eventually brought before the Supreme Court. It was initially going to be consolidated with another case, but the Court chose to hear it individually.             The Court ruled 6-2 in favor of ...
Read more

Biden v. Nebraska

-
Image
Unbiased Case Analysis:             During his presidential run Joe Biden promised to cancel up to $10,000 of federal student loan debt per borrower. He kept his word and used executive action to enact his promise. Nebraska and five other states challenged Biden and his forgiveness program. They argued on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed the case. The Supreme Court stepped in to decide on it.             The Court decided 6-3 in favor of Nebraska. The Court found that the Secretary of education does not authority under the HEROES Act “…to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in dept principal and affect nearly all borrowers.” Most of the justices cited the major questions doctrine as their reaso...
Read more

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

-
Image
For my first blog post I am going to examine one of the latest cases SCOTUS ruled on: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer. Unbiased Case Analysis: Deborah Laufer is a disabled woman who checks hotel websites to see if they provide accessibility information required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She sued Acheson Hotels after discovering one of their hotel websites failed to provide accessibility information. The district court dismissed her case since she did not plan to visit the hotel. Therefore, she would suffer no injury from the hotel’s lack of accessibility information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision determining that a lack of intent to visit the hotel did not excuse Laufer from injury. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case and rule on it. The Court unanimously voted to vacate the case. The Court found the case to be moot which means it has lost its relevance which no longer neces...
Read more