"AFBF is considering its options to avoid application of the 2015 rule while EPA moves forward with an appropriate long-term solution that provides clear rules and clean water without requiring a federal permit to plow a field", Steen added.
The Court in the end relied upon the general provisions of the Act which allows for challenges of agency actions to the federal district courts in ruling that the proper venue for the challenge to WOTUS was before the individual federal district courts thus also creating substantial uncertainty as to the status of the various challenges to the WOTUS rule already underway.More news: QBE to swing to $1.2b loss on hefty write-downs, profit downgrade
The Trump Administration has announced plans to reconsider the WOTUS Rule, and Attorney General Stenehjem appreciates those efforts. (Law360) The high court's unanimous decision.
"We are going to ask the court to revive the lawsuit, as I suspect many other plaintiffs are thinking of doing, and we are going to ask for a stay of the rule", James Burling, vice president of litigation for the California-based Pacific Legal Foundation, told Bloomberg Environment.
Likewise, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a property rights group, is evaluating whether to revive its now stayed lawsuit in the federal district court in Atlanta, and whether to seek a stay of the rule there as well. "It is significant that the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with our position so we can continue our challenge to this unacceptable federal overreach", he continued.More news: Alaska quake prompts tsunami alert
At issue is the Obama-era Clean Water Rule, which aimed to clarify which wetlands and streams receive automatic protection under the water law. The Supreme Court's decision will determine where the inevitable legal challenges to an expected replacement regulation will be heard.
In an interview with Reuters this month, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt disclosed plans to rewrite the Obama-era rule meant to clarify which water bodies are covered by the Clean Water Act. Justices rebuffed arguments by the administration that a federal appeals court should instead hear the litigation. Because the dispute over which court has jurisdiction has consumed almost two years, Attorney General Stenehjem emphasized that he will ask the federal district court to resume North Dakota's case as quickly as possible.
Stenehjem said the case will probably "wind up back in the Supreme Court on the final merits".More news: Microsoft Xbox One X launched in India for Rs 44990
Sotomayor said the water rule imposes no restrictions, such as permit limits for wastewater releases.