Rapanos v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rapanos v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 21, 2006
Decided June 19, 2006
Full case name: John A. Rapanos, et ux., et al., Petitioners v. United States; June Carabell, et al., Petitioners v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al.
Docket #: 04-1034
Citations: 547 U.S. 715; 547 U.S. 715; 126 S. Ct. 2208; 165 L. Ed. 2d 159; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4887; 74 U.S.L.W. 4365; 62 ERC (BNA) 1481; 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 275
Prior history: On writs of cert. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Holding
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice: John Glover Roberts, Jr.
Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito
Case opinions
Plurality by: Scalia
Joined by: Roberts, Thomas, Alito
Concurrence by: Roberts, Kennedy
Dissent by: Stevens
Joined by: Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Laws applied
Clean Water Act

Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly-appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts and Associate Justice, Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court heard the case on February 21, 2006 and issued a decision on June 19, 2006. While five justices agreed to void rulings against the plaintiffs, who wanted to fill their wetlands to build a shopping mall and condos, the court was split over further details, with the four more conservative justices arguing in favor of a more restrictive reading of the term "navigable waters" than the four more liberal justices. Justice Kennedy did not fully join either position.[1]

Contents

[edit] Prior history

The case revolves developers John A. Rapanos (Midland, Michigan) and June Carabell whose separate projects were stopped because of the environmental regulations that make up the Clean Water Act.

In the late 1980s, Rapanos filled 54 acres of wetland that he owned with sand in preparation for the construction of a mall without filing for a permit.[1] He argued that the land was not a wetland and that he was not breaking the law, but his own consultant and state employees disagreed. Rapanos' land is up to 20 miles from any navigable waterways.[2] However, the term "navigable waterway" has been broadly interpreted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to include areas connected to or linked to waters via tributaries or other similar means. Rapanos was convicted of two felonies for filling wetlands in violation of law in 1995. The conviction was overturned and restored several times but, in the end, he was forced to serve three years of probation and pay $5,000 in fines. [3] Eventually, Rapanos appealed the civil case against him, which included millions of dollars of fines, to the Supreme Court of the United States. [2]

Carabell, who was involved in the associated case Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, did seek a permit to build condominiums on 19 acres of wetlands, but the request was denied. Carabell took the issue to the courts, arguing that the federal government did not have jurisdiction. After losing in the Federal District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Carabell appealed to the United States Supreme Court.[2]

[edit] See all

[edit] References

  1. ^ Barringer, Felicity. "Michigan Landowner Who Filled Wetlands Faces Prison", The New York Times, 2004-05-18, p. A20. Retrieved on 2006-06-19. 
  2. ^ a b c Greenhouse, Linda. "Supreme Court Takes Up 2 Cases Challenging Powers of U.S. Regulators to Protect Wetlands", The New York Times, 2005-10-12, p. A14. Retrieved on 2006-06-19. 
  3. ^ Shepardson, David. "Man avoids prison in land feud", The Detroit News, 2005-3-16. Retrieved on 2006-06-19. 

[edit] External links