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.
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 .
As a result of the Court's decision, federal agency decisions on these lands affecting isolated wetlands will no longer be subject to section 404 permitting, but they will still be subject to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Orders dealing with wetlands, floodplain management, and protection of migratory birds.
The U.S. Supreme Court has stripped federal agencies of authority over millions of acres of wetlands, weakening a bedrock environmental law enacted a half-century ago to cleanse the country’s ...
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.
In reaching its broader legal conclusion, the court ruled on a 5-4 vote in an opinion authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito that Clean Water Act jurisdiction extends only to wetlands that ...
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 ...
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 ...