The Supreme Court’s latest decision limits the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ability to enforce broad water quality standards, a move that could reshape federal oversight of pollution in U.S. waterways and weaken the 1972 Clean Water Act.
Abbie VanSickle and Adam Liptak report for The New York Times.
In short:
- The 5-4 ruling sided with San Francisco, restricting the EPA from holding polluters accountable when water quality falls below federal standards, even if specific permit rules are followed.
- The case drew unusual alliances, with San Francisco aligning with industry groups like the National Mining Association and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers in challenging EPA authority.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court's three liberal justices in dissenting, arguing that the EPA should be allowed to enforce general water quality standards beyond specific permit conditions, especially when pollution leads to visible contamination.
Key quote:
“A permittee that punctiliously follows every specific requirement in its permit may nevertheless face crushing penalties if the quality of the water in its receiving waters falls below the applicable standards.”
— Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Why this matters:
The decision is a win for industry groups like the National Mining Association and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, who don’t want the government stepping in with broad enforcement powers. But it’s a blow to environmental regulators trying to keep America’s waterways clean, especially as runoff from agriculture, industry, and aging infrastructure continues to contaminate drinking water and threaten ecosystems.
Read more: Supreme Court undoing 50 years’ worth of environmental progress
