Senior Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic joined Kate Bolduan on Thursday’s CNN News Central to react to a 9-0 Supreme Court defeat for the Environmental Protection Agency. However, Biskupic told a different story and instead claimed the result was 5-4.
Biskupic did not start with the fake news immediately as she laid out the facts of the case, “this is a case that revives the idea that this Idaho couple had wanted to build their dream home on a plot of land on Lake Priest in Idaho, and been stopped by environmental regulators. The EPA said that their land was essentially wetlands that needed, you know, special permits if they were even going to be able to build.”
Getting to the case involving the Sacket family, Biskupic reported, “the justices ruled, first of all, that their case can be revived. They can try to be able to build their home. But more importantly, Kate, the justices, by a 5-4 vote, instituted a new test to determine when the EPA can regulate wetlands. It had to do with how close a parcel of land had to be to a body of water to be considered wetlands.”
As for the Court’s new tests, “And the justices today, again by a 5-4 vote, in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, said that the parcel of land had to be continuous to actual water. They separated it under an old test, there just had to be kind of a significant nexus that, in this case, allowed the EPA to regulate the property. The EPA had won in a lower court, but now the justices, again, by a 5-4 vote, have reversed the lower court.”
Biskupic is correct that Alito’s new test only passed by a 5-4 vote, but the Sacket family won its case against EPA 9-0 and Biskupic never mentioned that. As the not-at-all conservative NPR reported, “The court was unanimous in finding that the land owned by the Idaho family was not subject to the Clean Water Act, but split 5-4 on the court's new test, which held that only wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to a body of water are covered by the law.”
Translated from legalese into English: all nine agreed the EPA had gone too far in going after the Sackets, they just disagreed on where to re-draw the line. Biskupic is simply wrong to say the Court ruled 5-4 to reverse the lower court.
However, Biskupic also lamented that this decision fits a pattern, “more broadly, Kate, this is yet another ruling by this Supreme Court that cuts back on the power of the Environmental Protection Agency in its regulation. Last year, they did it under the Clean Air Act, to restrict what the EPA could do. And this one, Kate, is under the Clean Water Act.”
When even the three liberals agree that the Democratic EPA went beyond its authority that is also news, not just that they disagreed with the conservatives on the extent of the violation.
This segment was sponsored by Liberty Mutual.
Here is a transcript for the May 25 show:
CNN News Central
5/25/2023
10:19 AM ET
JOAN BISKUPIC: Sure. Good morning, Kate, and this is a case that revives the idea that this Idaho couple had wanted to build their dream home on a plot of land on Lake Priest in Idaho, and been stopped by environmental regulators. The EPA said that their land was essentially wetlands that needed, you know, special permits if they were even going to be able to build.
The Sackets, the family challenged the Environmental Protection Agency, and today, the justices ruled, first of all, that their case can be revived. They can try to be able to build their home. But more importantly, Kate, the justices, by a 5-4 vote, instituted a new test to determine when the EPA can regulate wetlands. It had to do with how close a parcel of land had to be to a body of water to be considered wetlands.
And the justices today, again by a 5-4 vote, in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, said that the parcel of land had to be continuous to actual water. They separated it under an old test, there just had to be kind of a significant nexus that, in this case, allowed the EPA to regulate the property. The EPA had won in a lower court, but now the justices, again, by a 5-4 vote, have reversed the lower court.
And the other thing I should mention here, it's not just of consequence to this couple that for nearly two decades, as I say, has been trying to build this dream home on this piece of property, as they made their case to the justices, this is actually the second time that this case has come up to the justices. But more broadly, Kate, this is yet another ruling by this Supreme Court that cuts back on the power of the Environmental Protection Agency in its regulation.
Last year, they did it under the Clean Air Act, to restrict what the EPA could do. And this one, Kate, is under the Clean Water Act.
