| Rapanos v. United States | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued February 21, 2006 Decided June 19, 2006 |
||||||
| Full case name | John A. Rapanos, et ux., et al., Petitioners v. United States; June Carabell, et al., Petitioners v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al. | |||||
| Docket nos. | 04-1034 | |||||
| Citations | 547 U.S. 715 (more) 547 U.S. 715; 126 S. Ct. 2208; 165 L. Ed. 2d 159; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4887; 74 U.S.L.W. 4365; 62 ERC (BNA) 1481; 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 275 |
|||||
| Prior history | On writs of cert. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Plurality | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito | |||||
| Concurrence | Roberts | |||||
| Concurrence | Kennedy | |||||
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer | |||||
| Dissent | Breyer | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| Clean Water Act | ||||||
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging 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 plaintiffs, who wanted to fill their wetlands to build a shopping mall and condos, the court was split over further details, with the four more conservative justices arguing in favor of a more restrictive reading of the term "navigable waters" than the four more liberal justices. Justice Kennedy did not fully join either position.[1]
Contents |
Prior history
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 filled 54 acres (220,000 m2) of wetland that he owned with sand in preparation for the construction of a mall without filing for a permit.[2] He argued that the land was not a wetland and that he was not breaking the law, but his own consultant and state employees disagreed. Rapanos' land is up to 20 miles (32 km) from any navigable waterways.[3] However, the term "navigable waterway" has been broadly interpreted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to include areas connected to or linked to waters via tributaries or other similar means. Rapanos was convicted of two felonies for filling wetlands in violation of law in 1995. The conviction was overturned and restored several times but, in the end, he was forced to serve three years of probation and pay $5,000 in fines. [4] Eventually, Rapanos appealed the civil case against him, which included millions of dollars of fines, to the Supreme Court of the United States. [3]
Carabell, who was involved in the associated case Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, did seek a permit to build condominiums on 19 acres (77,000 m2) of wetlands, but the request was denied. Carabell took the issue to the courts, arguing that the federal government did not have jurisdiction. After losing in the Federal District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Carabell appealed to the United States Supreme Court.[3]
Holding
The Clean Water Act governs discharges to "navigable waters." Although the law contains language defining navigable waters as "waters of the United States," the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the position of the Army Corps of Engineers that its authority over water was essentially limitless under the Clean Water Act.
In Rapanos v. United States, the Supreme Court clarified that the term "waters of the United States" "includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water 'forming geographic features' that are described in ordinary parlance as 'streams[,] ... oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.'"
All waters with a "significant nexus" to "navigable waters" are covered under the CWA; however, the words "significant nexus" remains open to judicial interpretation and considerable controversy. Some regulations included water features such as intermittent streams, playa lakes, prairie potholes, sloughs and wetlands as "waters of the United States" [5]
In Rapanos v. United States, the Army Corps of Engineers applied that broad definition, seeking millions of dollars in fines and penalties from a farmer in Michigan who failed to get a federal permit before clearing his cornfield. The Army Corps of Engineers claimed that the farmer had filled a wetland with sand and in doing so he had discharged a pollutant into the "waters of the United States." The US. Supreme Court rejected that position, holding that isolated wetlands could not be considered "waters of the United States" for purposes of the CWA.[6]
See all
References
- ^ http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Scotus-Wetlands.html
- ^ Barringer, Felicity (2004-05-18). "Michigan Landowner Who Filled Wetlands Faces Prison". The New York Times. p. A20.
- ^ a b c Greenhouse, Linda (2005-10-12). "Supreme Court Takes Up 2 Cases Challenging Powers of U.S. Regulators to Protect Wetlands". The New York Times. p. A14.
- ^ Shepardson, David (2005-03-16). "Man avoids prison in land feud". The Detroit News. http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0503/16/B01-118750.htm. Retrieved 2006-06-19.
- ^ Code of Federal Regulations, 33 CFR Part 328; 40 CFR 122.2;40 CFR 230.3(s).
- ^ http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1034.pdf
External links
- John A. Rapanos v. United States at FindLaw (docket information)
- full text (HTML with links to precedent, statutes, and U.S. Constitution)
- Court of Appeals Opinion (PDF)
- NPR story regarding the case
- History of Rapanos and the related case, Carabell (A history, starting from the US Army Corps of Engineers permit application submitted by the Carabells and the enforcement action brought by the Environmental Protection Agency against Mr. Rapanos, through the various appeals leading to this US Supreme Court decision)
- [1] The Supreme Court and the Clean Water Act: Five Essays on the Supreme Court's Clean Water Act jurisprudence as reflected in Rapanos v. United States, published in April 2007 by the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law and the Vermont Law School Land Use Institute
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
