This is very misleading - the regulatory changes introduced by the ruling were 5-4 along ideological lines, even though the judgement in favor of the Sacketts w

This is very misleading - the regulatory changes introduced by the ruling were 5-4 along ideological lines, even though the judgement in favor of the Sacketts was unanimous. In the case this year: > The court voted unanimously to reverse the Ninth Circuit, but split 5–4 on the rationale. The majority opinion, by Alito, introduced a new test to define wetlands, which reversed five decades of EPA rule-making and limited the scope of the Clean Water Act's authority to regulate waters of the United States. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the three liberal justices in agreeing that the CWA did not apply to the Sacketts' property, but argued that the majority's new definition was incorrect and will have significant effects on regulated waters.