Running down the controlling opinion in Rapanos v. United States
In February of this year, the President signed an Executive Order calling for the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA to review and revise the government’s ill-fated definition of “waters of the United States” published in June, 2015. That definition sets the limits of federal authority under the Clean Water Act and literally affects millions of landowners nationwide. The 2015 WOTUS Rue (as it is commonly called), was unprecedented in scope asserting federal power to regulate virtually all waters in the Country and much of the land in direct conflict with the Clean Water Act and the Constitution of the United States. The rule was assailed by more than 30 states and scores of industry groups and landowners, including those represented by PLF. The rule was immediately stayed when two courts ruled it was likely invalid. But before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals could issue a final decision on the rule’s validity, the President issued his Executive Order. This had the effect of putting the pending litigation on hold, until the Corps and EPA can issue a new rule. According to the Executive Order, the new rule must satisfy two criteria: (1) the rule must accord with national policy to protect national waters without undermining the economy or statutory and constitutional law; and (2), the rule must be revised with due consideration for the opinion authored by Justice Scalia in PLF’s 2006 U.S. Supreme Court Rapanos decision which set the outer limits of federal authority under the Clean Water Act.
The Courts of Appeals and some legal scholars disagree on which opinion in the Rapanos case is controlling and should be followed by the federal agencies and the lower federal courts. Justice Scalia authored an opinion (joined by three other Justices) that gave a rather narrow interpretation of federal authority under the Act while Justice Kennedy (in a lone concurring opinion) gave a much broader interpretation of federal authority under the Act. Determining which opinion is controlling and how it should be implemented is complicated by the fact that the 2015 WOTUS rule far exceeds either of these opinions. Therefore, revision of that rule is not only prudent, but necessary to restore the rule-of-law..
We believe the Scalia opinion is controlling and should form the basis for a new rule defining “waters of the United States.” I authored an article defending this position called Running Down the Controlling Opinion in Rapanos v. United States. The article will be published in the fall edition of the University of Denver Water Law Journal. This is the abstract:
In Rapanos v United States, a majority on the Supreme Court held the federal government could not regulate all “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act based on a mere hydrological connection to a traditional navigable waterway. But the Court split 4-1-4 as to the jurisdictional test for covered waters. The four-member Scalia plurality would authorize federal regulation of only those wetlands physically abutting and indistinguishable from natural rivers, lakes, and streams connected to a traditional navigable waterway. Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment but proffered a different test that would allow federal regulation of any wetland with a “significant nexus” to a traditional navigable water, even in the absence of a direct hydrological connection. The four Justices in the dissent would authorize federal regulation of all waters that would serve to protect the nation’s waters generally. Therefore, the lower courts must decide the controlling opinion. The only standard provided by the Supreme Court to interpret its split decisions is set forth in Marks v. United States. Under Marks, the controlling opinion is that position “taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.” The term “narrowest grounds” means that opinion which is a logical subset of the other concurring opinion(s) in the case. The circuit courts are divided on how to apply Marks to the Rapanos decision. Some have adopted the lone Kennedy concurrence or rejected Marks as unworkable allowing the government to establish federal jurisdiction under either the Kennedy concurrence or the Scalia plurality. In each case, the court either misconstrued Marks or misinterpreted Rapanos. This article makes the case that whenever the Scalia plurality would find a jurisdictional water, Justice Kennedy would agree because the plurality test is a logical subset of Justice Kennedy’s broader “significant nexus” test. Together, the four Justices in the plurality and Justice Kennedy constitute a five-member majority. Under a proper application of Marks, the Scalia plurality is the controlling opinion in the Rapanos decision.
With a free registration, this article may be downloaded and read in prepublication form at SSRN.com here.
learn more about
Waters of the United States
In 2015 PLF challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule to stretch federal control to nearly every pond, ditch, and puddle in the nation as nothing more than an outrageous—and illegal—power grab under cover of the Clean Water Act. And under the Act, people who are harmed by such rules have six years to sue in federal district court. That is, until the EPA rewrote the rule, trying to prevent legal action by giving property owners just 120 days to sue, and then only in federal appellate courts. On January 22, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the EPA’s power play and unanimously ruled for PLF and property rights. The High Court agreed with PLF that the EPA cannot shelter its “waters of the United States” rule from judicial review by arbitrarily limiting where victims can sue.Read more
What to read next
Our friends at Institute for Justice have convinced the Supreme Court to soon decide in the case Timbs v. Indiana whether the Constitution restrains states (and not just the federal government) from … ›