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 .
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 ...
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.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The Obama administration increased funding of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act to ensure No Net Loss consistency, however funding has been cut in the current budget. [12] Obama campaigned to amend the Clean Water Act and to extend the Swamp buster program, however these commitments have yet to be followed-through with. Barack Obama ...
Court(s) of decision(s) Year(s) of decision(s) A-G v Geothermal Produce: General environment: pollution from pesticide spray: Court of Appeal of New Zealand: 1987 Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA: Air: authority to overrule state decisions about technology: Supreme Court of the United States: 2004 Aldred's Case: Aesthetics ...
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 ...