Supreme Court delivers huge win for affordable housing and the rule of law

This Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Idaho family, the Sacketts, had been wrongly obstructed and could go ahead with their house.The Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v.The Supreme Court rejected this definition in 2001, but the EPA then issued new regulations that, according to a 2006 Supreme Court decision, gave it jurisdiction over “virtually any parcel of land containing a channel or conduit through which rainwater or drainage may occasionally or intermittently flow.” That 2006 Supreme Court case struck down the EPA’s definition of “waters,” but it failed to find consensus on a new definition.

More needs to be done, especially in Congress, but last Thursday, a unanimous Supreme Court acknowledged the EPA had gone too far, and that is a good start.The 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) gives the EPA authority to regulate the discharge of “pollutants” into the “waters of the United States.