This page contains Supreme Court rulings -- with summaries of the majority and minority conclusions.
Decided Jun 19, 2006
Case Ruling: RAPANOS v. UNITED STATES
One petitioner was the subject of a civil enforcement action by the Army Corps of Engineers for filling, without a permit, three wetland sites that the Corps considered to be "navigable waters" under the Clean Water Act (CWA). These wetlands had "surface connections" to traditionally navigable waters. Another petitioner appealed the Corps' denial of a permit to fill wetlands that were separated by a dike from a drainage ditch that emptied into a tributary of traditionally navigable waters.HELD: Delivered by Scalia; joined by Thomas & AlitoThe CWA defines "navigable waters" as actual water, as found on the earth's surface in a permanent standing or flowing state. It does not include wetlands, except those wetlands that abut and extend without interruption away from "navigable" water. Here the technical expertise of the Corps in determining an appropriate boundary is called for. While entitled to deference, the Corps' regulations and policies cannot stand when they are
entirely without statutory support, and the Corps now asserts jurisdiction over roadside ditches and desert arroyos that are dry other than a few days a year.CONCURRED: Kennedy concursThe Court's precedent requires that a water or wetland have a "significant nexus" to traditionally navigable water. The Court should have followed that precedent.CONCURRED: Roberts concursIt is unfortunate that a majority could not agree on an opinion, because the Corps and lower courts will be left without guidance.DISSENT: Stevens dissents; joined by Souter, Ginsburg, & BreyerThe Court's precedent was that, considering the environmental goals of the CWA, the Corps' interpretation of its jurisdiction was reasonable to include tributaries and wetlands that the Corps considered to be "adjacent" in the sense of within a reasonable proximity and connected in some manner, not directly abutting, "navigable waters."
Participating counts on VoteMatch question 8.
Question 8: No 'rights' to clean air and water
Scores: -2=Strongly oppose; -1=Oppose; 0=neutral; 1=Support; 2=Strongly support.
- Topic: Environment
- Headline: Clean Water Act does not apply to wetlands
(Score: 2)
- Headline 2: Clean Water Act applies only to navigable wetlands
(Score: 1)
- Headline 3: Clean Water Act applies to tributaries & wetlands
(Score: -2)
Participating counts on AmericansElect question 8.
- Headline: Clean Water Act does not apply to wetlands
(Answer: A)
- Headline 2: Clean Water Act applies only to navigable wetlands
(Answer: B)
- Headline 3: Clean Water Act applies to tributaries & wetlands
(Answer: D)
- AmericansElect Quiz Question 8 on
Environment:
Which of the following statements comes closest to your personal view?
- A: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity
- B: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity, but should be somewhat protected
- C: Natural resources should be mostly protected, but also exist for the benefit of humanity
- D: Natural resources exist on their own and should be completely protected
- E: Unsure
- Key for participation codes:
- Sponsorships: p=sponsored; o=co-sponsored; s=signed
- Memberships: c=chair; m=member; e=endorsed; f=profiled; s=scored
- Resolutions: i=introduced; w=wrote; a=adopted
- Cases: w=wrote; j=joined; d=dissented; c=concurred
- Surveys: '+' supports; '-' opposes.
Independents
participating in 06-RAPANOS |
Total recorded by OnTheIssues:
Democrats:
2
Republicans:
7
Independents:
0 |
|
 |
|
