Washington – The Supreme Court wrestled Tuesday with how far upstream the government should extend protections of the Clean Water Act, a case that could affect millions of acres of wetlands.
The justices, in two Michigan wetlands cases, are seeking to clarify whether building projects can be barred from property adjacent to tributaries that feed into waterways protected by the 1972 law or are separated from protected waters by a man-made berm.
Justice David Souter, questioning the attorney for property owner John Rapanos, suggested that limiting the law’s reach could allow an “end run around the regulation” by polluters.
But Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia questioned whether a broad interpretation of the law might give regulators jurisdiction over storm drains and ditches.
Roberts said that “at some point, the definition of tributary has to have an end” or it would go beyond Congress’ intent.
In other actions Tuesday by the Supreme Court, the justices:
Ruled 8-0 that a small branch of a South American religious sect in New Mexico may use hallucinogenic tea as part of a religious ritual.
Unanimously overturned an appeals court decision that said a white chicken-plant manager could not be sued for calling black employees “boys.”
Agreed to hear an appeal from a child molester who is challenging California’s sentencing system that allows judges to use facts not presented to juries to impose longer sentences.
Refused to hear an appeal by two tobacco companies that claimed California’s tough anti- smoking ads smeared their reputations.
