If you didn't find what you were looking for, try a new search!
The Supreme Court sided against the federal government in another wetlands case, which could make the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to extend its control over more bodies of water on private property even harder.
In a landmark decision that is as uplifting for property rights advocates as it is devastating for land trusts throughout the United States, the Virginia Supreme Court on February 12 overwhelmingly ruled in favor of a small Loudoun County winery in its multi-year battle with one of the nation’s most powerful environmental groups. By a 5-2 margin, the Virginia Supremes upheld a lower court decision that Chrysalis Vineyards’ plans to upgrade its facilities did not violate the terms of a conservation easement on the property held by Wetlands America Trust (WAT), on behalf of Ducks Unlimited (DU). The case, Wetlands America [...]
Antonin Scalia was a careful steward of the U.S. Constitution throughout his career. May he rest in peace. Through the Constitution the people tell their government "this far may you go, but no further." Justice Scalia worked to keep government within its lawful bounds during an era of dangerous executive overreach. Now what?
The Supreme Court blocked Obama's dirty "clean power plan." CFACT doesn't label EPA's energy regulations "dirty," lightly. "Dirty" is the right word for the trick they tried to pull.
CFACT advisor Larry Bell talks about ObamaCare and the EPA -- and how the Supreme Court, to the surprise of many, is going to listen to pleas that the EPA must consider the economic impact of its rules as part of an overall package.
Marita Noon cites the recent Supreme Court decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as providing a cause for litigation against the EPA's proposed regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The key sentences in Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion are these: "When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate 'a significant portion of the American economy' . . . we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism. We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign an agency decisions of vast 'economic and political significance'.”
The Court served notice today that the Executive branch cannot unilaterally write its own laws. This is an important principle. However, the United States still remains fated to suffer most of the economic damage EPA's regulations will cause.
If the Supreme Court allows this, by giving carte blanche authority to EPA, the battle will rage on countless other fronts, because voters are sick and tired of being lied to, manipulated, defrauded, and forced to pay outrageous prices for oppressive regulations.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CFACT to Supreme Court -- EPA emissions rules violate Constitution's separation of powers They are harmful, arbitrary, capricious and fraudulent. Read the brief.
Will the Supreme Court apply the constitutional brakes to EPA's emissions regulations while there's still an economy left to regulate?