Originally Posted by
J. Barron DeJong
I’m not going to pretend that I’ve read the whole judgment, and I probably wouldn’t understand most of the legalese anyway.
But my understanding of the problem here, from reading people who follow the court, isn’t that the case was decided in the plaintiffs favor - it was a unanimous decision. The issue is that the majority overreached in a way that sets a new precedent that eliminates the EPA’s ability to regulate wetlands unless it they are directly connected to the a main body of water.
That was never the case previously, it contradicts verbiage that was specifically included by congress when writing the law, and as the judges in the minority showed, it was entirely possible to rule in favor of the plaintiffs without handcuffing the EPA.