Statements (83)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Used in environmental law education
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
04-1034
Involved multiple appeals Involved landowners challenging federal jurisdiction |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
Limited scope of federal regulation
Split decision Divided opinions on jurisdiction Limited federal jurisdiction over wetlands Debate over environmental policy direction Encouraged state-level regulation of wetlands Increased scrutiny of federal jurisdiction claims Legal uncertainty for landowners Limited scope of Clean Water Act Shift in regulatory focus to state agencies |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Set precedent for future cases
Influenced future environmental regulations |
| gptkbp:case_types |
Environmental law
Environmental law case |
| gptkbp:consequences |
Reduced federal regulatory power
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Washington,_D._C.
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
June 19, 2006 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:4
gptkb:Justice_John_Paul_Stevens 5-4 Environmental protection requires federal oversight Broad interpretation of 'waters' is necessary Federal authority is essential for environmental protection |
| gptkbp:docket_number |
04-1034
|
| gptkbp:environmental_impact |
Regulation of isolated wetlands
Affected wetland conservation efforts |
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Rapanos v. United States
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Wetlands protection
|
| gptkbp:influenced_by |
Previous Supreme Court rulings
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
547 U. S. 715 (2006)
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
gptkb:Administrative_Procedure_Act
Chevron deference Judicial interpretation of statutes |
| gptkbp:legal_context |
gptkb:Federal_Water_Pollution_Control_Act
Debate over federal vs. state authority |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Reversed lower court decision
Influenced lower court rulings Environmental policy changes Interplay between state and federal law |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Clean Water Act jurisdiction
Federal vs. state jurisdiction Nexus to navigable waters Definition of 'waters of the United States' Scope of federal environmental regulation |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Clarified federal authority
|
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
gptkb:Waters_of_the_United_States
Interstate commerce clause Continuous surface connection Significant nexus test |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
Interpretation of 'navigable waters'
|
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:Federal_Water_Pollution_Control_Act
gptkb:Clean_Water_Act |
| gptkbp:outcome |
Reversed and remanded
Split decision |
| gptkbp:party |
gptkb:United_States_government
gptkb:John_Rapanos |
| gptkbp:precedent |
Substantial nexus test
Nexus requirement for federal jurisdiction |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia
5-4 4-1-4 Federal government overreached in jurisdiction Only navigable waters are protected Federal jurisdiction does not extend to isolated wetlands |
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Controversial among environmentalists
Supported by property rights advocates |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:SWANCC_v._United_States_Army_Corps_of_Engineers
gptkb:United_States_v._Riverside_Bayview_Homes,_Inc. Cases interpreting 'navigable waters' |
| gptkbp:related_to |
Environmental law
|
| gptkbp:scholarly_analysis |
Examined in legal journals
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Influenced future environmental regulations
Impact on Clean Water Act enforcement |
| gptkbp:sound |
November 2, 2005
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia
gptkb:Sackett_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
5
|