3 ms·
There was most certainly not unanimity on the redefinition of wetlands, which is what they were talking about.
by banana_feather 3y ago
There was most certainly not unanimity on the redefinition of wetlands, which is what they were talking about.
- liquidgecka 3y ago> While the nine justices agreed that the Sacketts should prevail, they divided 5-to-4 as to how far to go in limiting the EPA's authority. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/25/1178150234/supreme-court-epa-clean-water-act https://www.npr.org/2023/05/25/1178150234/supreme-court-epa-...
- banana_feather 3y agoI'm sorry, did you not read past the ad break? The very next paragraph is about four dissenters taking issue with the wetlands definition: > Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by the court's three liberal members, disputed Alito's reading of the statute, noting that since 1977 when the CWA was amended to include adjacent wetlands, eight consecutive presidential administrations, Republican and Democratic, have interpreted the law to cover wetlands that the court has now excluded. Kavanaugh said that by narrowing the act to cover only adjoining wetlands, the court's new test will have quote "significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States."