WOTUS suit goes forward in the Supreme Court
In our last WOTUS update, we informed you that the President recalled the infamous WOTUS rule redefining “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act and directed DOJ and the EPA to revise the rule in accordance with the Scalia opinion in Rapanos v. United States. This effectively ended our challenge to the validity of the rule in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the President’s order has no effect on our suit in the Supreme Court which asks the Court to decide where challenges to the WOTUS rule may be brought.
Because the WOTUS rule will be revised and reissued, some parties moved the Supreme Court to hold the briefing in abeyance until the new rule is issued. We opposed that motion because it would simply delay the inevitable. Whenever the new WOTUS rule is issued, all parties need to know which court has jurisdiction to hear any challenge to the rule. Should the challenge be brought in the district court or the appellate court? That remains an open question and there is no reason why the Supreme Court should delay answering that question. The Court agreed. Today, the Supreme Court denied the motion to hold the briefing in abeyance. Instead, the case will proceed as scheduled. Our opening brief arguing that challenges to the WOTUS rule must first be brought in the district court is due April 13, unless an extension is granted. The National Association of Manufacturers has asked for an extension to April 27. This extension will likely be granted at which time we will file our opening brief.
learn more about
Waters of the United States
It’s now up to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if the EPA can stretch federal control to nearly every pond, ditch, and puddle in the nation. On October 11, justices heard arguments in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, a consolidated case which included an extensive array of our clients. We challenged the EPA’s 2015 proposed rule as being nothing more than an outrageous – and illegal – power grab under cover of the Clean Water Act.Read more
What to read next
This past week Cato Institute, Southeastern Legal Foundation, and the NFIB Small Business Legal Center filed amicus briefs supporting our Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Ganson v. City of Marathon regulatory takings case. … ›
California has now rescinded the state’s onerous “certificate of authenticity” requirement for the sale of autographed books. Hear directly from Bill and case attorney Anastasia Boden about the impact of this victory for freedom, common sense, and Bill’s right to be an upstanding small business owner.
One of the most fundamental rights of American citizens is the right to seek redress from illegal government action in a court of law. But the federal government has an arsenal of weapons it wields to deny or curtail this right. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the government’s attempts to stifle landowner suits challenging federal agency action under the Clean Water Act.