Sackett v. EPA: What the Decision Means 

Lets go!!!

If your boat can't reach a river from your farm pond, it's NOT Navigable Waters.

What's creating all this is we allow the agencies to "interpret" these laws. This leads to overreach. Congress passes a law then allow these agencies to make the rules they use to enforce or carry out the law. Then you get an executive branch with an agenda or an agency infiltrated with activists which leads to the situation we see today. This is costing citizens loads of money fighting the overreaching agency in court, possably loss of lively hood while it's tied up in court, and the tax dollars spent by the government fighting the citizen. Taxes force the citizen to pay for the government to fight them in court. Agencies in question should automatically be forced to reimburse the citizen for all expenses incurred by that agencies actions to include loss of income.

I just found out that a road that has been in use for over 80 years through my wetland requires a 500.00 permit to fix it now.

This abhorent ruling is the nail in the coffin of living coral reefs in the Caribbean. This was a shameful ruling by an absolutely shameful court.

Another win for corporate profit over the environmental health of the nation

They get to build their dream how but it's 50% more expensive in this economy🤦🏼‍♂️

Versus. Two syllables. Big win for freedom from Big Government! Thanks for the informative report.

This goes so much bigger than just agriculture... a lot of groups were watching this case, along with WV v. EPA, particularly the 2A community. This is going to serve as a precedent argument for government overreach across many other 3-letter agencies.

The Court’s mistake is straightforward: The Court essentially reads “adjacent” to mean “adjoining.” As a result, the Court excludes wetlands that the text of the Clean Water Act covers-and that the Act since 1977 has always been interpreted to cover. In support of its narrower “continuous surface connection” interpretation of covered wetlands, the Court emphasizes that the 1972 Act’s overarching statutory term is “waters of the United States.” Ante, at 19. And the Court suggests that the term “waters of the United States” cannot be interpreted to cover “adjacent wetlands” but only “adjoining wetlands.” See ante, at 19-22. But in 1977, Congress itself expressly made clear that the “waters of the United States” include “adjacent” wetlands. 91 Stat. 1601. And Congress would not have used the word “adjacent” in 1977 if Congress actually meant “adjoining,” particularly because Congress used the word “adjoining” in several other places in the Clean Water Act. 33 U. S. C. §§1321(b)- (c), 1346(c); see also §§1254(n)(4), 2802(5). To bolster its unorthodox statutory interpretation, the Court resorts to a formula: “A minus B, which includes C.” Ante, at 19. That just seems to be a fancier way of arguing (against all indications of ordinary meaning) that “adjacent” means “adjoining.” But again the Court is imposing a restriction nowhere to be found in the text. In the end, the Court has no good answer for why Congress used the term “adjacent” instead of “adjoining” when Congress enacted §1344(g) in 1977.1 Pay more attention below .Once again. .” BUT AGAIN THE COURT IS IMPOSING A RESTRICTION NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE TEXT. IN THE END, THE COURT HAS NO GOOD ANSWER FOR WHY CONGRESS USED THE TERM “ADJACENT” INSTEAD OF “ADJOINING” WHEN CONGRESS ENACTED §1344(G) IN 1977.1 No Decision. Just opinions. Opinions are like ________ Everybody has one But does Congresses make any sense ? Not according to the SCOTUS, of America ? I’ll wait. P.R. JL R.R.

FJB🚫👎🏼😒

Da,n government overreach!