This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Thursday, June 1st,

2023.

I'm Caleb Brown.

A unanimous Supreme Court last week finally gave relief to a family that

had been mired in litigation with the Environmental Protection Agency,

all over there desire to build a home on their lakefront property.

The Sackett case will have implications beyond the protection of wetlands and how the federal government

regulates water. Charles Yates of the Pacific Legal Foundation

represented the Sackets. We spoke earlier this week. I don't want to get two in

the weeds here because it's very easy to get into the weeds on this particular issue, but let's clear up some clutter and that might be lingering in people's brains about what this decision

was on the substantive question of whether or not the EPA overstepped its bounds.

What was the level of unanimity on the U.S. Supreme Court?

It was non-zero, Caleb.

It was a unanimous judgment in favor of the

sack it's an a unanimous rebuke of the agencies and they're overstepping

under the Clean Water Act. Okay with that aside the the way it was presented in public at least was that this was a lot, maybe more narrow than falling along traditional well understood ideological lines on this court.

What was the difference among justices in evaluating the Sacketk's claims against the EPA.

So there was a five justice majority led by Justice Alito and then a primary concurrence written

by Justice Kavanaugh.

Now, as I said, the judgment was unanimous.

They all determined the Sackett's property is not subject to EPA's authority.

And they all rejected the significant nexus test, which is the primary test under which EPA has relied to assert jurisdiction over wetlands.

...