Supreme Court Reins EPA Power in Sackett Homeowner Case

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

52% : "At a minimum, then, the use of 'navigable' signals that the definition principally refers to bodies of navigable water like rivers, lakes, and oceans," the opinion explained, reinforcing a limit with wide-ranging implications for federal environmental regulations.
49% : WASHINGTON, DC - The Supreme Court unanimously scaled back the Environmental Protection Agency's power under the Clean Water Act (CWA) by defining the "waters of the United States" on Thursday in Sackett v. EPA.
49% : Although the rule listed a few examples of "waters" that were excluded from regulation like puddles and swimming pools, it categorically covered other waters and wetlands, including any within 1,500 feet of interstate or traditional navigable waters.
49% : The case is Sackett v. EPA, No. 21-454 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
42% : They were also told that they had no right to take this situation to court because thousands in daily fines were not a "final action" by EPA.
24% : "And because the CWA can sweep broadly enough to criminalize mundane activities like moving dirt, this unchecked definition of 'the waters of the United States' means that a staggering array of landowners are at risk of criminal prosecution or onerous civil penalties," Alito noted.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.