A MIDDLE GROUND ON WATER POLLUTION | What The DACA Case Will Say About The Roberts Court
November 7, 2019
NPR’s Nina Totenberg reports on the case before the Supreme Court yesterday involving a Maui sewage treatment facility which asked justices to consider whether the facility’s wastewater disposal method violates the Clean Water Act. She explains that on the steps outside SCOTUS, “Lawyer David Henkin, representing environmental groups, noted that the Trump administration is siding with the wastewater plant in this case and in so doing, reversed three decades of EPA interpretation of the federal anti-pollution law.”
YOU WOULD NEVER BREAK THE CHAIN|
AP’s Mark Sherman writes that justices yesterday appeared uncertain as to how they should decide the Clean Water Act case, noting that several justices were searching for a compromise. “The justices seemed concerned that a ruling for Maui would provide what JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER called a ‘road map’ for polluters to evade federal permit requirements. Picking up on Breyer’s description, CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS asked, ‘Any little bit of groundwater is enough to break the chain?'”
THERE IS NO PLANET B|
“As the argument wrapped up, the justices looked to be searching for a middle-ground position that would restrict large-scale pollution flowing through groundwater while preventing lawsuits over distant and trace pollutants.” David Savage of the Los Angeles Times reports on yesterday’s case and writes, “In the last decade, the justices have been split over how far the federal government can go to regulate water inside the United States, whether it be wetlands, or, as in this case, groundwater. The court’s conservatives have argued the federal government can regulate only polluted water that flows into a river, bay or the ocean. But environmentalists as well as the court’s liberal justices have said this authority can extend farther inland to prevent pollution draining off fields and eventually flowing to streams, rivers and bays.”
Linda Greenhouse with The New York Times writes about the Supreme Court’s upcoming case in which justices will hear arguments on the validity of PRESIDENT TRUMP’S decision to terminate DACA. She argues that while the eventual outcome of that case will of course have a significant impact on the Dreamers, it “will also be important in defining the court’s relationship to a president who behaves as if he has the Supreme Court in his pocket.” She goes on, “It will indicate whether the Roberts court — more specifically, the chief justice himself — will continue to insist on believable explanations from an administration that often appears incapable of giving one.”
“The U.S. Supreme Court is again poised to test the bounds of Donald Trump’s presidential powers, this time in a politically charged clash over the fate of 700,000 people who were brought into the country illegally as children.” That’s Greg Stohr with Bloomberg previewing the DACA case set for argument next Tuesday.
POD DU JOUR|
Today’s episode of The Daily podcast takes a look at one of the Supreme Court cases this term addressing LGBTQ workplace rights. On the pod is AIMEE STEPHENS who was fired from her job after coming out as transgender, and now she is at the heart of a SCOTUS case that will determine employment rights of the LGBTQ community.
SCOTUS VIEWSThe Atlantic
“On the night of July 27, 2017, police in the Memphis suburb of Southaven, Mississippi, responded to a domestic-violence report. They went to the wrong address, knocked loudly, and, a short time later, shot through the door, fatally hitting the homeowner, Ismael Lopez, in the back of the head. Officers later claimed that Lopez had pointed a gun at them; his wife, who was present, denies this. Those events are not before the Supreme Court this term and they may never be, but the killing of Lopez and its aftermath illustrate the stakes in two cases the Court will hear soon.”
OTHER NEWSThe National Law Journal
“A ‘quagmire’ of a Clean Water Act ruling that Justice Antonin Scalia wrote more than 13 years ago could now play a central role in the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most important environmental case this term.”