Rapanos v. United States

Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act . It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice , John Roberts , and Associate Justice Samuel Alito . The Supreme Court heard the case on February 21, 2006, and issued a decision on June 19, 2006.

While five justices agreed to void rulings against the defendants, who were prosecuted for impacting a wetland incidental to commercial development, the court was split over further details, with the four more conservative justices arguing in a plurality opinion for a more restrictive reading of the term "navigable waters" than the four more liberal justices. Justice Anthony Kennedy did not fully join either position. The case was remanded to the lower court.

Ultimately, Rapanos agreed to a nearly $1,000,000 settlement with the EPA without admitting any wrongdoing.

Contents

• 1 Background

• 2 Decision

  • 2.1 Justice Scalia's plurality opinion

  • 2.2 Chief Justice Roberts's concurring opinion

  • 2.3 Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion

  • 2.4 Justice Stevens's dissenting opinion

  • 2.5 Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion

• 3 Subsequent developments

  • 3.1 WOTUS rule

• 4 See also

• 5 Notes

• 6 References

• 7 External links

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapanos_v._United_States&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

The case involves developers John A. Rapanos (Midland, Michigan ) and June Carabell, whose separate projects were stopped because of the environmental regulations that make up the Clean Water Act.

In the late 1980s, Rapanos prepared 22 acres (8.9 ha) of land for the development of a mall by pulling trees and filling the hole with sand. Rapanos did not file for a permit when he pulled the trees, but the government claimed that his land was a wetland because it was adjacent to a drainage ditch. Rapanos argued that the land was not a wetland and that he was not breaking the law. He claimed that his land was up to 20 miles (32 km) from any navigable waterways. But the United States Environmental Protection Agency has interpreted the term "navigable waterway" broadly, to include areas connected to or linked to waters via tributaries or other similar means.

When Rapanos refused to accept the government's claims about whether his land was a wetland, the government filed a federal lawsuit against him, accusing him of violating the Clean Water Act. After a mistrial , the jury returned two felony guilty verdicts for filling wetlands in Rapanos's second trial. In August 1995, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Paul Zatkoff granted Rapanos's request for a new trial, but in May 1997, Sixth Circuit Judge Pierce Lively , joined by Judge Karen Nelson Moore , reversed and remanded for sentencing, over the dissent of Judge David Aldrich Nelson . After sentencing, Circuit Chief Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr. , joined by Judges Alan Eugene Norris and Karl Spillman Forester , remanded for resentencing in December 2000. In February 2002, Judge Zatkoff set aside Rapanos's conviction again, and in September 2003 Circuit Judge Martin, joined by Judges Norris and John M. Rogers , again reinstated the conviction. In the end, Rapanos was forced to serve three years of probation and pay $5,000 in fines.

In July 2004, Judge Danny C. Reeves , joined by Circuit Judges Eugene Edward Siler Jr. and Julia Smith Gibbons , affirmed the district court's civil judgment against Rapanos. Next, with representation from the nonprofit public interest law firm Pacific Legal Foundation , Rapanos unsuccessfully sought a rehearing from the Sixth Circuit. Failing that, he appealed the civil case against him, which included millions of dollars of fines, to the Supreme Court.

Carabell, who was involved in the associated case Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, sought a permit to build condominiums on 19 acres (77,000 m2) of wetlands, but his request was denied by the Army Corps of Engineers . Carabell took the issue to the courts by arguing that the federal government did not have jurisdiction. In September 2004, Judge William Stafford , joined by Circuit Judges Gibbons and Alice M. Batchelder , affirmed the district court's delivery of summary judgment against Carabell. Carabell then appealed to the Supreme Court.

In _United States v. Riverside Bayview _, the unanimous Court had found that wetlands abutting Lake St. Clair were included in the Corps's jurisdiction over waters of the United States . In 2001, a divided Court found that the migratory bird rule could not reach isolated ponds in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers _ (SWANCC). All waters with a "significant nexus" to "navigable waters" are covered under the CWA, but the words "significant nexus" remain open to judicial interpretation and considerable controversy. Some regulations included[when?
_] water features such as intermittent streams , playa lakes , prairie potholes , sloughs and wetlands as "waters of the United States".

The case was argued on the same day as _S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection _, with the Pacific Legal Foundation arguing for Rapanos and United States Solicitor General Paul Clement arguing for the government.

Decision

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapanos_v._United_States&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Decision")

The justices were unable to produce a majority decision.

Four justices voted to affirm. Four justices voted to vacate, to strike down the Corps's interpretation of the CWA, and to remand under

…