To be clear: I'm talking about their redefinition of the word "adjacent". Forgive me if I'm not following the thread correctly here. Justice Alito seems to think adjacent means "navigable waters" instead of "these waters are literally connected to each other even if not above ground".
It’s just a matter of how intimately connected.
Don't blame this on the congress. Doing so is an ahistorical timeline.
Being nice aren't we :)
They are useless unless the regulation lines their pockets along with it seems the Court System. The US will bring down the world with it based upon how the Supreme Court Legalized bribing.
I say this as a US citizen.
>The court voted unanimously to reverse the Ninth Circuit, but split 5–4 on the rationale. The majority opinion, by Alito, introduced a new test to define wetlands, which reversed five decades of EPA rule-making and limited the scope of the Clean Water Act's authority to regulate waters of the United States. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the three liberal justices in agreeing that the CWA did not apply to the Sacketts' property, but argued that the majority's new definition was incorrect and will have significant effects on regulated waters.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackett_v._Environmental_Prote...