You can read the opinion for yourself: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf

You can read the opinion for yourself: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf TL:DR: The case comes down to how to define the EPA's interpretation of their mandate to protect the "Waters of the United States". The EPA could make the case that any amount of moisture on any property in the US could qualify as "Waters of the United States" largely to its own discretion. In this case none of the justices argued that the EPA's choice to fine the couple $40,000 a day wasn't arbitrary and egregious. > With the court’s ruling, the CWA no longer protects isolated wetlands nor intermittent and seasonal bodies of water, Ryan said. This is actually not what the judgement said, and there are plenty of situations where it determines non-arbitrary protections of wetlands.