9-0 Supreme Court Ruling: Big Win for Property Rights

In a Supreme Court decision which, for some reason, went right into a media black hole as soon as it was passed, the U.S. Supreme Court handed a major win for personal property owners across the entirety of America. Specifically, in a 9-0 unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court, they for one, significantly limited the scope of the Clean Water Act as well as the EPA, and in so doing, they limited the federal government's ability to dictate what you and I can or cannot do on our own property. Although, to explain the details as well as the implications that this particular case has on everyday Americans like you and I, let me back up for a quick second and give you the background and the details here, right after you take a super quick moment to smash those like and subscribe buttons so that this information can reach ever more people via the YouTube algorithm. Now, to start with, imagine this scenario. You purchase a vacant lot of land near a beautiful lake in the state of Idaho with the intention of building a home for you and your family. You then hire a company to start backfilling this empty lot with dirt in order to prepare the foundation on which you'll actually be building your home. However, once you start this process, agents of the EPA suddenly show up on your property during construction and they tell you that you cannot build a home there because your property contains a wetland. And by backfilling your own property, you're actually in violation of the Clean Waters Act. You're confused. You look around your property and you don't understand because you clearly do not have any wetlands. However, the EPA informs you that the so-called wetland takes the form of a drainage ditch, which eventually feeds into a creek, which then eventually feeds into a local lake. And so because you had a drainage ditch on your property, the EPA tells you that you have to restore the site to its previous condition. And if you don't comply, they will hit you with penalties of up to $40,000 per day. As crazy as that scenario sounds, it's exactly what happened back in the year 2007 to the Sackett family over in the state of Idaho. However, what the EPA didn't expect was that this episode, it wound up serving as a catalyst, which then kicked off a chain of events, which eventually saw this family's case go before the US Supreme Court, not once, but twice. Because you see, in 2007, when this whole episode took place, the Sackett family, they initiated a lawsuit against the EPA, arguing that what was taking place was unlawful. However, the EPA itself, which at the time was emboldened by the victory of Barack Obama in 2008, was making the counter argument that the Sackett family did not have a right to sue them over the Clean Water Act. Forgetting any particular details of the case itself, the EPA was making the foundational argument that this family did not even have a right to bring a legal challenge against the agency at all. Now, eventually, after five full years of this legal back and forth, the case did wind up in front of the US Supreme Court for the first time. This was in the year 2012. And at the time, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Sackett family, saying that actually they did have a legal right to challenge the EPA. And by the way, just as an aside, this really does represent the enormous challenge that common Americans face when trying to fight with the federal government. Think about that. It took five years for this family to finally establish the fact that they had a right to actually sue the EPA. Anyway, in 2012, this meant that after five years, their actual real case could begin. However, it did not go well. That's because both the lower court, as well as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, they both ruled in favor of the EPA. However, the Sackett family then appealed that decision to the US Supreme Court, who then eventually took up the case. And in May of last year, in May of 2023, 16 full years after the initial incident occurred, the US Supreme Court unanimously in a nine to zero ruling ruled in favor of the Sackett family. And in so doing, they stripped away the Biden administration's attempt to expand the Clean Waters Act. And before I read to you the Supreme Court ruling itself, let me give you a brief history of the Clean Water Act, because it becomes very relevant to this discussion. Back in 1972, Congress took a law that was already on the books called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. They reorganized it and expanded the language. And the end result became known as the Clean Water Act of 1972. And as the name implies, the main role of the Clean Water Act is to prohibit the discharge of pollution from a point source into navigable waters within the US. Now, on the surface, that makes sense. However, just like with any federal law, the key lies in the details and the definitions. Because for one, pollutants does not just refer to industrial waste. According to US code, within the context of the Clean Water Act, pollutants also include things like rocks, sand, as well as dirt. And then secondly, in terms of what constitutes navigable waters, well, that's defined within the law as follows, quote, the waters of the United States, including territorial seas. And so because of this definition, waters of the United States, or WOTUS for short, became a broad term which established the scope of the federal government's jurisdiction. But the problem, ever since the adoption of the Clean Water Act all the way back in the 1970s, is that nowhere in the actual text of the law does it clearly define what WOTUS is, what waters of the United States actually means. And because of that, interpreting what it means, and therefore figuring out the scope of government power, has been left up to individual presidents as well as their administrations. And so what we've been seeing for the past 50 odd years is that on the one hand, you have environmental groups as well as Democrat presidents pushing to broaden the definition of WOTUS, while on the other hand, you've had Republican presidents limit what constitutes as WOTUS. And so one side, it says that it's acting to protect the environment, while the other side says that they're acting to protect individual property rights. This is the pendulum that's been swinging back and forth again for the past 50 or so odd years, one administration to the next. In 2015, President Obama expanded the definition of WOTUS, but then in 2020, President Trump revised the definition and he reduced what constituted protected wetlands. But subsequently in 2023, the Biden administration changed the definition again, and in so doing, they significantly expanded federal authority by making WOTUS, the waters of the U.S., include everything from ponds to even puddles. However, this Joe Biden change did not last long. That's because just four short months after he made it, the U.S. Supreme Court finally issued their official ruling in the case of Sackett versus the EPA, which is the case involving this Idaho family. Specifically, the decision which was made unanimously with all justices ruling against the EPA. And in so doing, the U.S. Supreme Court, they invalidated a huge part of the EPA's new definition as established by the Biden administration. Here's part of what the U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion said, The Clean Water Act's use of waters refers only to geographical features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes, and to adjacent wetlands that are indistinguishable from those bodies of water due to a continuous surface connection. In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that WOTUS, waters of the U.S., doesn't just apply to every pond and puddle on a person's property. And instead, WOTUS refers only to what common Americans would consider navigable waterways. And furthermore, a wetland must be connected to one of these waterways by a constant surface water connection. And so, essentially, the majority opinion of the court, which, just by the way, for your reference, was written by Justice Sam Alito, it laid out a new two-part test for determining whether the Clean Water Act has jurisdiction over a specific property. Firstly, the adjacent body of water must constitute an actual waterway of the United States, which the Supreme Court defined as a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters. And then, secondly, the wetland on a person's property must have a continuous surface connection with that adjacent waterway, such that it makes it difficult to determine where the water ends and the wetland begins. All right, just to pause here for a super quick moment. Listen, it's obvious that the financial system is not looking too great. After being pumped up with trillions of virtually free government dollars for many, many years now, well, the stock bubble might actually burst in the near future. And in that process, unfortunately, it could take away the nest egg of anyone who happens to be exposed to it. And so, consider taking this opportunity to diversify into something which is beyond the grasp of Washington, D.C., and Wall Street, physical gold and silver. And the best company to use, in my opinion, is the sponsor of today's episode, American Hartford Gold, who, I should mention, is also my own personal gold and silver bullion dealer. And besides myself, they have thousands of five-star reviews from other Americans, and they also have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau. And working with them is rather simple. They have a huge selection of coins, bars, and rounds to choose from. They have super friendly staff who you can call, and they can set up either gold delivery directly to your doorstep, or they can even set you up in a gold IRA. And lastly, best of all, if you tell them the Romans sent you, they will throw in a free gold coin with your first qualifying purchase. So give them a call. The number is 866-242-2352. That's 866-242-2352. Or you can simply text Roman to 65532. I'll also throw a link to their webpage. They'll be down there in the description box below. That is the new two-part test established by the U.S. Supreme Court. And so, using this new definition, the small drainage ditch on the Sackett family's Idaho property did not qualify as a wetland, and therefore, the Clean Water Act did not apply. All it took was a cool 16 years of litigation to figure that fact out. However, as a result of that 16-year-long battle, the EPA was forced once again to revise the definition of the waters of the U.S. in order to conform with what the U.S. Supreme Court wrote. And because of that change, well, a lot of people across the entirety of America are no longer subject to the EPA's jurisdiction. For instance, according to estimates from state officials, in the western part of the U.S., which has a really arid climate, more than 90% of surface waters are now exempt from the Clean Waters Act, which, on the one hand, is seen as a victory for advocates of property rights, since they see this ruling as a significant blow to an ever-overreaching bureaucratic government that is dead set on imposing climate change restrictions by any means possible. On the flip side, however, you have environmental groups who, after this U.S. Supreme Court ruling passed, expressed worry that these new limited definitions will wind up leading to an uptick in pollution, including more forever chemicals being dumped into American waterways. Although, realistically, what's going to wind up happening is just like what happened with abortion. The authority over all these waterways will now go back to the state and local governments, and it'll be up to them to find a balance between protecting our collective water as well as protecting our collective property rights. But in the meantime, as a practical matter, this U.S. Supreme Court unanimous decision eliminated one large-layer bureaucracy for most people, making it easier for land developers, for farmers, for ranchers, as well as for common property owners to expand and to build a property that they already own. And by the way, just as a total aside, when we were doing the research for today's episode, we actually wanted to reach out and to speak to Mr. Michael Sackett for an interview to get his take on the case as well as his 16-year-long battle and his victory. However, it turns out that, well, this case took 16 years to get across the finish line. The initial incident took place in the year 2007, and then the final verdict from the U.S. Supreme Court, it came down in the year 2023. However, in that time frame, in the middle of all that, Mr. Michael got arrested, charged, and pled guilty to trying to meet up with a 12-year-old girl in order to do things that would get you arrested for trying to do with a 12-year-old girl. Essentially, he was caught up in a sting operation by law enforcement trying to pay for things I will not mention, and so we decided to not pursue the interview with him. And that just makes the case a little bit, in my opinion, more interesting, because on the one hand, this man's perseverance for 16 full years pushed this U.S. Supreme Court case all the way across the finish line, and in so doing, he helped to secure more property rights for Americans like you and me, which on the one hand is great, but on the flip side, during that period of time, he was also found guilty of trying to meet up with and pay for something with a 12-year-old child. You can make up your own mind in terms of forming an opinion about what that all means. I just present to you the facts. And actually, I'd like to give a big thanks to our intrepid researcher, Mr. Eric Schumacher, who discovered this fact. This is a picture of Eric Schumacher doing normal research, and here is a picture of him finding out this piece about the 12-year-old child. Thank you for your service. Regardless, if you'd like to go deeper into the actual U.S. Supreme Court case, I'll throw a link to the PDF of the ruling. You can find it down in the description box below if you're the type of person that likes to dig into the weeds. And all I ask in return is that as you're making your way down there to the link in the description box, take a short detour, if you haven't already, to smash those like and subscribe buttons, which will quite literally force the YouTube algorithm to share this information out to ever more people. And then lastly, if you enjoyed today's episode and you're just thinking to yourself, man, I love this content, I just wish Roman would publish more episodes every single week. Well, you're in luck, because I do. Over on EpicTV, our awesome no-censorship video platform, I publish anywhere between one to three exclusive episodes of Facts Matter every single week, usually on topics that are unfortunately not welcome here on YouTube. And so if you'd like to get access to those exclusive episodes, including a huge backlog from the last three years, now's a great opportunity, because the Epic Times is running a phenomenal sale. Just 25 cents a week for the whole year, which if you do the math, works itself out to just be a single dollar a month. And so if you're indeed looking for an honest source of uncensored news, well, you can check out EpicTV as well as the Epic Times more broadly. I'll throw a link to the sale page, it's right there at the top of the description box below. You can just click on that link and you can head on over to the sale page, take advantage of the sale, $1 a month, can't beat that price. You can, of course, even cancel anytime. The idea is just to get you in the content and hopefully you'll be a subscriber for a long, long time to come, years, perhaps even decades. Again, the link is right there at the top of the description box below. I hope that you join us over on EpicTimes and EpicTV.com. And then until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epic Times. Stay informed, and most importantly, stay free.