The case that got away
In Rapanos, a 4-1-4 Supreme Court offered a splintered decision on enforcement of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which concerned whether wetlands or waterways fall within the jurisdiction of the law.
In the McWane case, the solicitor general asked the high court to clarify its decision in a case from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that turned on whether a Birmingham, Ala., pipe manufacturer had violated the Clean Water Act. The district and circuit courts had conflicting opinions on the case.
The Pacific Legal Foundation, which argued on behalf of the winning side in Rapanos, also filed an amicus brief that urged the court to take the case, Gieseler said.
"It was a win for us but it was a 4-1-4 opinion and there is a great deal of confusion in the lower courts about which test applies," he said. "It's not just because of the kind of division in the court but also because Justice [Anthony] Kennedy's opinion that is most often held to control is somewhat murky."
Jackson said he expects another opportunity to arise for the court to revisit the issue.
"The court is obviously pretty split on this," he said. "Also, the confusion among the lower courts will probably eventually compel the justices to weigh in again at a time that is appropriate."
Legislation making its way through the Senate would restore the Clean Water Act protections narrowed by Rapanos, which would likely lead to more lawsuits, said Matt Kenna of the Western Environmental Law Center. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved the wetlands bill, 12-7, last week amid strong Republican dissent.
"While environmentalists welcome Congress' action to reverse Rapanos, developers and industry groups will likely mount a direct legal challenge that could eventually make its way back to the Supreme Court," said Kenna, who argued on behalf of the respondents in Summers v. Earth Island Institute.
Assessing the impact
Environmental law experts remain divided on the immediate and long-term significance of the five decided cases.
"Each of these five cases are more significant than the Exxon case decided last year," Fischman said. "Four of the cases deal explicitly with an environmental statute and the one that doesn't -- Summers -- concerns an issue that arises in almost every situation where environmental groups are challenging something that the government does."
While Winter v. NRDC received a majority of media attention because of its national security component, the standing question at issue in Summers v. Earth Island Institute could likely have a broader impact, according to Fischman.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add Commentfinally
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally an intelligent decision from the supreme court. But I doubt if this is any indication to what direction the court is heading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the court exhibits an extreme hostility towards eco-religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Court must not let the Constitution get in the way of environmental ideologies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStrange, the Supreme Court decides cases based on law rather then the 9th district way of making law based on case decisions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least one branch of our government has retained some sanity and common sense! Good job boys ....... and girl.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCompletely Off Topic
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeading over to the stretching area, the Score composed by Jeremy Soule, First Light,
'father's' emotional intelligence into my well-being. Fathering fair composure, Soule's Scores diligently bombard each nonvacant compile of assurance I honor as sanction of truth. Auriel's Ascension, a score of silent faith similar in depth as Gorecki's Symphony #3 OP 36, awakens me as a sure bound partner.
The Supreme Court's function is to improve uniformity across state and national laws, uphold the Constitution and in very limited ways make new law.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuestions of science should be resolved in the lower courts. Procedure and definition, not facts are their primary domain. The Supreme Court is enforcing the "Rule of Law" nature of our government. Decisions are rightly made on the narrowest of grounds to avoid grand sweeping changes that are later reversed. The Court's role is not disrupting, but stability.
Congress is the place to work for change. Don't expect or even desire the Court to lead. Please read Justice O'Connor's book for more insight to the Supreme Court.
I saw Kennedy and O'Connor giving a joint interview the other day on TV. Kennedy was pontificating how if anyone thinks being a Republican or a Democrat has anything to do with Supreme Court decisions, they don't know how the court works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRepublicans are hostile to anything having to do with cleaning up earth's environment. Many of them consider Global Warming to be a cultish fad, used by people who want to bring down the United States.
Five Republicans on the Supreme Court - and five Justices who can be depended upon to look with hostility on anything brought before it by an environmental group.
So much for judicial independence.