|
| |
|
This page contains Supreme Court rulings -- with summaries of the majority and minority conclusions.
99-1178
on Oct 31, 2000
Decided Jan 9, 2001
Case Ruling: SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF COOK COUNTY v. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
A consortium of suburban Chicago municipalities (Cook County) selected as a solid waste disposal site an abandoned sand and gravel pit. They asked the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to determine if a landfill permit was required under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Corps cited the “Migratory Bird Rule,” which extended its jurisdiction to intrastate waters that provide habitat for migratory birds, and refused to issue a permit.Held: (Rehnquist, joined by O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, & Thomas)
Applying the Migratory Bird Rule exceeds the authority granted to the Corps under the CWA. The Corps would have jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to a navigable waterway, but these wetlands are not adjacent to open water. Dissent:(Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, & Breyer)
In 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, coated with a slick of industrial waste,
caught fire. Congress responded to that dramatic event by enacting the Clean Water Act. The Act proclaimed the ambitious goal of ending water pollution by 1985. The Court’s past interpretations of the CWA have been fully consistent with that goal. Today, however, the Court takes an unfortunate step that needlessly weakens our principal safeguard against toxic water. In its decision today, the Court draws a new jurisdictional line, one that invalidates the 1986 migratory bird regulation as well as the Corps’ assertion of jurisdiction over all waters except for actually navigable waters, their tributaries, and wetlands adjacent to each. Congress does support the Corps’ present interpretation of its mission as extending to so-called “isolated” waters. I respectfully dissent.
Participating counts on VoteMatch question 18.
Question 18: Replace coal & oil with alternatives
Scores: -2=Strongly oppose; -1=Oppose; 0=neutral; 1=Support; 2=Strongly support.
- Topic: Environment
- Headline: Limit CWA restrictions to navigable waterways
(Score: -1)
- Headline 2: Extend CWA restrictions to isolated water bodies
(Score: 1)
Participating counts on AmericansElect question 8.
- Headline: Limit CWA restrictions to navigable waterways
(Answer: A)
- Headline 2: Extend CWA restrictions to isolated water bodies
(Answer: C)
- AmericansElect Quiz Question 8 on
Environment:
Which of the following statements comes closest to your personal view?
- A: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity
- B: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity, but should be somewhat protected
- C: Natural resources should be mostly protected, but also exist for the benefit of humanity
- D: Natural resources exist on their own and should be completely protected
- E: Unsure
- Key for participation codes:
- Sponsorships: p=sponsored; o=co-sponsored; s=signed
- Memberships: c=chair; m=member; e=endorsed; f=profiled; s=scored
- Resolutions: i=introduced; w=wrote; a=adopted
- Cases: w=wrote; j=joined; d=dissented; c=concurred
- Surveys: '+' supports; '-' opposes.
Independents
participating in 99-1178 |
Total recorded by OnTheIssues:
Democrats:
2
Republicans:
7
Independents:
0 |
|
 |
|
