State attorneys general file lawsuit against Biden administration

Shortly after the Biden administration issued new regulations regarding the Waters of the United States, aka WOTUS, 24 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit to prevent these regulations from redefining what is subject to federal jurisdiction.

According to the article, "The lawsuit is the latest attempt by Republicans to overturn a rule they say places an undue burden on landowners; nearly 150 members of Congress introduced a resolution against the new Biden EPA rule on Feb. 2, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit on Jan. 18. The attorneys general [say] the Biden administration’s redefinition of 'navigable waters' rule exceeds the authority granted to the EPA under the Clean Water Act and potentially raises constitutional concerns."

That doesn't mean these waters won't be regulated. It simply means that they'd be regulated by the appropriate state government. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey announced the lawsuit during a press conference Thursday. During the press conference, Morrisey said "The Supreme Court needs to define once and for all the term 'Waters of the United States' in such a way that state lands and waters are not subject to the whims of unelected bureaucrats." Amen with that!

Here's what AG Morrisey said in his statement:

This new final rule is a decades-long effort by the EPA to regulate purely intrastate waters without the explicit consent of Congress. This is yet another attempt from unelected bureaucrats to expand their own authority by broadly defining Waters of the United States.

This offers some insight into the WOTUS:

The EPA's recent history shows that they won't hesitate in using the administrative state to make major changes to environmental law. Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA in West Virginia v. EPA:

"In a 6–3 ruling issued on June 30, 2022, the Court ruled that the regulation of existing power plants in Section 7411(d) fell under the major questions doctrine, and within that, Congress did not grant the EPA authority to regulate emissions from existing plants based on generation shifting mechanisms, which would have invalidated the Clean Power Plan.

This lawsuit likely will involve what's known as the Supreme Court's Major Questions Doctrine, which essentially says that major changes require legislative action. It's time for the Supreme Court to define what is (or isn't) part of the federal government's jurisdiction. Part of the Supreme Court's list of responsibilities is to determine what level of government has jurisdiction. Ruling against the EPA would represent a welcome limitation to the EPA's plans of expansion.