Zachary Irani, Press Corps 7
SCOTUS, Non-Traditionals - In August of 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the EPA does in fact have jurisdiction over Sackett’s property under the Clean Water Act. Today, after hours of debate, the Supreme Court of the United States heard the case and determined their own decision on the matter.
The respondents began by questioning the petitioner’s argument, suggesting that the permit Sackett (two Idaho landowners - Michael and Chantell Sackett) obtained was somewhat disingenuous, as they only asked for a permit after they began construction--dumping sediment onto the wetlands. Beyond that, many felt that Sackett would have been happy to continue the project without the permit had they not been caught.
“They would have been more than happy to just quietly develop that land without anybody noticing,” a counsel respondent said.“They only requested a permit when they got caught. And that means they don't have any moral high ground to stand on.”
The petitioners had many questions for respondents as well. A dilemma for them was the economic precedent the court’s decision would leave. Many felt that siding with the EPA would mean restricting many Americans' right to build on land across the country. Following that argument, Justice Brett Kavanaugh brought another economic argument to light, stating that it would cost the United States approximately 384 billion dollars to maintain clean water across the entire country every year.
When the NAIMUN Daily asked a counsel respondent about these claims they expressed concerns over the Court’s motives.
“At the end of the day, the job of this court is not to discuss the economy,” he stated. “This case is about the Clean Water Act. It's not about the United States economy. And as a representative of the Environmental Protection Agency, my sole job is to preserve the chemical, physical and biological safety of US waters.”
Eventually, the discussion shifted towards the impact of Sackett’s proposed building. The CWA (Clean Water Act) states that building practices, such as laying sediment down on wetlands adjacent to a protected body of water, are harmful and therefore prohibited. The respondents argued that though there is not a constant surface connection of water, there is still a subsurface flow of water that significantly impacts the surrounding protected bodies. The petitioners, on the other hand, suggested that there was a very loose connection to the surrounding bodies, arguing that the word adjacent would not apply to Sackett’s construction.
When it came to a vote, the majority of the court sided with the EPA, with four Justices, Jackson, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Sotomayor, wholeheartedly agreeing with the EPA, and another two, Alito and Gorsuch, agreeing with a concurrence. The latter argued that there were flaws in both arguments, mainly that the CWA was too vague and that some of the conditions were loosely met by Sackett. Ultimately though, they sided against Sackett in their final decision. Three justices, Roberts, Thomas, and Barret dissented, arguing that for both economic reasons, and state’s rights, Sackett should be allowed to build on the land.
This decision sets the precedent that the United States, more specifically the EPA, is committed to their promises under the CWA and has no intentions to compromise with their interpretation of it.