Northwestern Pritzker School of Law’s Robert Weinstock and Alexa Longstaff say there are shortcomings to the Supreme Court majority’s opinion in the Clean Water Act permit case, and the result could lead to a more adversarial permitting system.

In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled to limit the EPA's authority to issue broad water pollution permits under the Clean Water Act.

The dissent, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, suggests that the legal theory of five-vote majority decision was largely of the Court’s own making and contends that its narrow interpretation of “limitation” is unsubstantiated and “wrong as a matter of ordinary English.” It offers the following examples to rebut the majority’s conclusion.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court substantially weakened federal limitations on raw sewage discharge into nearby bodies of water. Its 5–4 decision will, in practice, free cities to dump substantially more sewage into rivers,

The Supreme Court weakened restrictions on the discharge of raw sewage into water supplies in a 5-4 decision to roll back provisions of 1972's Clean Water Act.

Americans are getting antsy about the possibility of poop in the drinking water thanks to a new interpretation of the Clean Water Act. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that many are concerned will hamper the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce clean water standards across the U.S.

On Tuesday, March 4, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in City and County of San Francisco, California v. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. No. 23-753 in which the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) challenged certain provisions in the Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for its Oceanside wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) that conditioned compliance on whether the receiving water body met certain water quality standards.

A new lawsuit alleges that the city of Cannon Beach is regularly discharging untreated human waste into its waterways, putting residents and visitors of a popular Oregon beach at risk.

An environmental lawyer who wrote an amicus brief in San Francisco v. EPA believes a criticized ruling actually means tougher standards.

The 5-to-4 decision is the latest setback for the agency and could have sweeping implications for curtailing water pollution offshore.

The justices ruled that the agency cannot impose generic prohibitions against violating water quality standards.

By a 5-4 vote, the court's conservative majority ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority under the Clean Water Act with water pollution permits that contain vague requirements for maintaining water quality. The decision is the latest in which conservative justices have reined in pollution control efforts.