US Supreme Judicial Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that the High Court reached the “enigmatic” conclusion on Tuesday in case of the regulations on the quality of the water issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Why is it important
The city and county of San Francisco challenged the EPA through the pure act on the waters in non-compliance with the clear, measurable border.
The ninth appellate court for appeals judges in favor of the EPA, but the Supreme Court annulled the decision of the lower court in the decision of 5-4.
What to know
Barrett separated from the court, and Justices Soonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji brown Jackson was joined.
AP Photo / Mark Schiefelbein
Supreme Court EPA Judgment: What do we know
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion of the Court. He said the disputed provisions “exceed the EPA authority” and that the Agency has “abundant tools” to determine what exactly the plant should be done to protect the quality of water, not the general “end results”.
“Determination of which steps allows must ensure that the quality of water quality is to be met, and the Congress has requested what the quality of water will not suffer,” the water quality was not to suffer, “Alto wrote.
Barrett’s opinion did not agree with Part III of the majority of the High Court, which focuses on the argument set by San Francisco for the permit limitations not “restrictions”. She said the argument is “indifferently inconsistent” with the law.
“In my opinion, the failure of that argument should have completed this case. The Court continues, however, with theory to a great extent,” Barrett wrote.
What is a pure water rank of 1972. years?
Pure water from 1972. year is a federal law regulating water pollution in the US
What do people say
Alito, in the Court’s view: “When a provision simply says that a certain end result must be achieved and that on the permit to understand what should be done, a direct source of limitations or restraint is a plan that issues for the purpose of avoiding future responsibility.”
Barrett, in partial disagreement: “Receiving water restrictions are not categorically inconsistent with clean water. Because the court otherwise holds, I respect each other.”
Do you have a story Newsweek should be covered? Do you have questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
2025-03-05 01:13:00
