Crypto doesn't sleep, so neither do we.

Cracken client support is available 24-7, 365 days a year by call, chat, or email.

We're here for you whenever you need us.

Give us a shout at cracken.com forward slash support proof, not investment advice.

Crypto trading involves risk of loss.

This is CBSI in the world. I'm John Bachelors.

The Supreme Court, the term already is shaping up to be a wapper when it comes to debating what the court means by what cases it's hearing in oral arguments, what cases it's aiming for in the future and what cases it's denied.

I welcome Professor Richard Epstein of the Hoover Institution. He teaches law at the University of Chicago and also at NYU to comment on a case already presented to the Supreme Court in oral arguments.

It is Michael Sackett versus the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

This is about the environment. It's about water. It's also about what I'm struck by.

The confusion of those of us who are not legally trained, that's me, reading what comes to the court in strange language.

Here it is. The Tishiners Michael and Chantelle Sackett, on a vacant lot in a mostly built out residential subdivision near Priest Lake, Idaho.

The lot has no surface water connection to anybody of water. In April 2007, with local permits in hand, the Sackett's began building a family home.

But later that year, the EPA sent them an administrative compliance order determining that their home construction violated the Clean Water Act because there are lots contains wetlands that qualify as regulated, quote, navigable waters.

I stopped there because there's precedent here, but the professor will help us understand how wetlands are navigable when you can't sail a boat on them. Richard, a very good evening to you.

I have a stream on farmland I'm very familiar with because I'm sitting on it. The stream clearly is not navigable, but the fish do very well in it and it tumbles down to the Hussetonic River.

That means the EPA is right to protect it, but a wetland, Richard, that's when it rains too much or when there's a seasonal stream. There's nothing navigable about it if you arrive on a sunny day.

So please help me understand what the EPA is thinking is and where this case is going. Good evening to.

Well, this has a long history, but you did as you mentioned that the first interaction between the government and the Sackett's was in 2007.

So already something is deep way out of whack if it's taking 15 years to decide a permitting question.

Well, you're talking about his bone dried land, which of course can be inundated by rain, but if that's the definition of a wetland, the United States is one giant wetland.

So the definition has become a theme room and what they're trying to do is to expand the definitions of a wetland or a navigable river or body of water in order to escape the coast scope of government authority.

...