Rapanos v. United States
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Rapanos_v._United_States an entity of type: Thing
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court heard the case on February 21, 2006 and issued a decision on June 19, 2006. Ultimately, Rapanos agreed to a nearly $1,000,000 settlement with the EPA without admitting to any wrongdoing.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Rapanos v. United States
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
John A. Rapanos, et ux., et al., Petitioners v. United States; June Carabell, et al., Petitioners v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al.
xsd:integer
4618033
xsd:integer
1118468810
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Breyer
xsd:integer
4
rdf:langString
Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
715
xsd:integer
547
xsd:gMonthDay
--02-21
xsd:integer
2006
rdf:langString
Rapanos v. United States,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-19
xsd:integer
2006
rdf:langString
John A. Rapanos, et ux., et al., Petitioners v. United States; June Carabell, et al., Petitioners v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al.
rdf:langString
Wetlands without a hydrological or ecological connection to other navigable waters do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.
rdf:langString
Rapanos v. United States
rdf:langString
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court heard the case on February 21, 2006 and issued a decision on June 19, 2006. While five justices agreed to void rulings against the defendants, who were prosecuted for impacting a wetland incidental to commercial development, the court was split over further details, with the four more conservative justices arguing in a plurality opinion for a more restrictive reading of the term "navigable waters" than the four more liberal justices. Justice Anthony Kennedy did not fully join either position. The case was remanded to the lower court. Ultimately, Rapanos agreed to a nearly $1,000,000 settlement with the EPA without admitting to any wrongdoing.
rdf:langString
Kennedy
rdf:langString
Roberts
rdf:langString
Roberts, Thomas, Alito
rdf:langString
Scalia
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
35212