Blog

According to Yahoo News, the decision was made on Wednesday when the Supreme Court Justices ruled 5–4 to overturn a lower court decision that eliminated the regulation and remanded it back to the Environmental Protection Agency.

According to the Biden administration, the regulation will be changed. Although the administration has stated that a final rule is not anticipated until the spring of 2023, work on a change has already begun. The Trump-era regulation will continue to be in force in the interim.

The Biden administration had told the justices in a court filing that it agreed that the U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup lacked the authority to throw out the rule without first determining that it was invalid. But the administration had urged the court not to reinstate the rule, saying that in the months since Alsup’s ruling, officials have adapted to the change, reverting to regulations in place for decades.

The section of federal law at issue in the case is Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. For decades, it had been the rule that a federal agency could not issue a license or permit to conduct any activity that could result in any discharge into navigable waters unless the affected state or tribe certified that the discharge complied with the Clean Water Act and state law, or waived certification.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined liberal Justices in dissenting.

The Supreme Court announced on Monday a major decision regarding a case involving a veteran suffering from PTSD.

According to SCOTUS Blog, the nation’s highest court will consider “equitable tolling” for a U.S. Navy veteran who did not file a claim within the allotted timeframe under existing law.

“If a veteran of the United States Armed Forces sustains an injury during military service, they may be entitled to disability benefits. If they apply for benefits within a year of separating from the military, benefits may begin retroactively to the day after service,” the blog noted.

The court also rejected a lawsuit from gun rights groups to challenge a ban on bump stocks.

“The decision not to hear the two related cases, a blow for gun rights activists, leaves the ban in place. The conservative-majority court issued a major ruling in June that expanded gun rights, although the legal issues in the bump stock cases were different,” NBC News reported.

“The ban, implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, went into effect in 2019 after the Supreme Court declined to block it. Since then, the already conservative court has tilted further to the right, with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, replacing liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in 2020,” the outlet added.

Back in June, the Supreme Court issued its most significant pro-Second Amendment decision in nearly two decades when justices ruled 6-3 that New York’s concealed carry law was unconstitutionally restrictive.

The ruling, experts say, is significant because it means similarly restrictive concealed carry laws, limited primarily to blue states, are also likely to be successfully challenged.

The Second Amendment “protect[s] an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion for the ruling.

But this major case wasn’t the high court’s only Second Amendment ruling, and in fact, SCOTUS likely opened the door to much of the expected new litigation.

SCOTUS also instructed federal appeals courts to take a new look at laws in California and New Jersey that put limits on the number of rounds a magazine can hold.

In 2018, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed Democrat-passed legislation that limits magazines to 10 rounds of ammunition rather than the 15-round limit that had been in place since 1990. A lower court had already upheld the law.