Environmental Protection Agency
Why Is the Army Corps Still Harassing Idaho Landowners?
Idaho landowners are facing ruinous fines because the Army Corps of Engineers refuses to follow the Supreme Court’s Clean Water Act ruling in Sackett v. EPA.
Environmental Protection Agency
Idaho landowners are facing ruinous fines because the Army Corps of Engineers refuses to follow the Supreme Court’s Clean Water Act ruling in Sackett v. EPA.
For decades, federal rules punished good Samaritans who tried to tackle toxic mine pollution. A new program removes barriers to restoring waterways across the West.
A new study suggests political considerations may influence the enforcement of federal environmental law.
Nominated stories include journalism on messy nutrition research, pickleball, government theft, homelessness, and more.
Could the Court treat Justice Powell's Bakke opinion the way it treated Justice Kennedy's Rapanos opinion?
Thanks to Sackett v. EPA, the feds can no longer treat a backyard puddle like it's a lake.
The Clean Water Act decision was a unanimous win for the Sacketts, and a 5-4 victory for Justice Scalia's 2006 Rapanos v. United States plurality.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will soon put a permanent stop to the EPA's Clean Water Act land grab.
The Biden administration is the third administration in a row to fail to issue Clean Water Act regulations that pass judicial scrutiny.
A Ninth Circuit opinion concludes that when a federal agency seeks a voluntary remand of a contested rule, that is not enough to vacate the regulation.
If SCOTUS finds in favor of a small-town Idaho couple in Sackett v. EPA, it could end the federal government's jurisdiction over millions of acres of land.
The EPA and Army Corps have finalized a revised definition of "waters of the United States," which defines the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
The justices wrestled with the problem of identifying a clear, coherent, and administrable definition to constrain federal regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
Ten years after their unanimous Supreme Court victory against the Environmental Protection Agency, the Sacketts return to One First Street for another round.
The Sacketts get a return trip to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps surprisingly, the Biden Administration is not pushing an expansive interpretation of federal regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
The Army Corps and EPA were happy to have the Trump Administration rule remanded, as they are working on a more expansive replacement that will itself face legal challenge.
Environmental Protection Agency
The Sackett's' litigation with the Environmental Protection Agency has continued, and may provide the Court with a new opportunity to consider the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction.
The Trump Administration's Clean Water Act rule will remain in place while the Biden Administration works on a replacement.
Federal clean water regulations are a confusing mess for property owners. The Supreme Court just made things worse.
Environmental groups were worried the Court would curtail CWA jurisdiction in Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund. It didn't.
Hysterical reactions greet the White House's modest changes to federal clean water rules.
Efforts to take Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund off the Supreme Court's docket hit a snag.
As we await the Trump Administration to finalize a new definition of "waters of the United States," federal courts continue to reject the Obama Administration's effort
In redefining "waters of the United States," the Obama Administration failed to follow the Administrative Procedure Act.
A major environmental case might settle before the Supreme Court has the chance to review it.
The Trump Administration is attempting a welcome redefinition of "waters of the United States"
Environmental Protection Agency
A welcome new federal approach under the Clean Water Act.
The Trump Administration faces another legal setback in its effort to reform federal environmental regulation.
According to federal regulations, they are. But Congress is now subjecting that rule to scrutiny.
Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks