Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), also known as Sackett II (to distinguish it from the 2012 case), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that only wetlands and permanent bodies of water with a "continuous surface connection" to "traditional interstate navigable waters" are covered by the Clean Water Act.
The ruling is another example of the court's conservative justices powering a decision that curbs broad power of federal agencies, a consistent theme in recent years.
In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court limits federal protection for wetlands in a property rights case, saying the Clean Water Act does not usually apply to the marshy areas.
The Supreme Court on Thursday sharply limited the federal government's authority to police water pollution into certain wetlands, the second decision in as many years in which a conservative ...
"No Net loss" is the United States government's overall policy goal regarding wetlands preservation. The goal of the policy is to balance wetland loss due to economic development with wetlands reclamation, mitigation, and restorations efforts, so that the total acreage of wetlands in the country does not decrease, but remains constant or increases.
United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice , John Roberts , and Associate Justice Samuel Alito .
NC legislators are considering changing the state’s wetlands definition to match the federal government’s, which the Supreme Court sharply limited. Proposed NC law could mean Supreme Court ...
Habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim a state-court has found on the merits unless the state-court decision denying relief involves an "unreasonable application" of "clearly established federal law, as determined by" the Court. Swarthout v. Cooke: 10-333: 2011-01-24 State prisoners have no constitutional right to parole ...