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.
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 ...
A month after the U.S. Supreme Court severely restricted the federal government's power to oversee wetlands, the Republican-dominated North Carolina legislature handed state agencies an order: Don ...
The ruling Thursday may nullify key parts of a rule the B. The U.S. Supreme Court has stripped federal agencies of authority over millions of acres of wetlands, weakening a bedrock environmental ...
The law on how to define a wetland — of key interest to property developers and other business interests — has long been muddled and was not resolved when the Supreme Court decided an earlier ...
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), is a Supreme Court of the United States case before the Court on an application for a stay of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's COVID-19 vaccination or test mandate. On January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court ordered a stay of the mandate. [1]
The Supreme Court remanded the case for further determination to resolve the question over the validity of the distinction between the two bodies of water at issue (a canal and an undeveloped wetland) and the Government's broader "unitary waters" argument that all water bodies that are "navigable waters" under the Clean Water Act should be ...
First day of new Supreme Court term features a clash between environmental protection and property rights, joined by new Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Supreme Court hears lively debate on ...