In a ruling that might have caused several attorneys general to furrow their brows just a little more deeply than usual, the Supreme Court on Thursday declined to let Republican-led states join a lawsuit challenging an Environmental Protection Agency rule on water pollution, an outcome which may leave several lobbyists awkwardly rechecking their calendars and contingency plans.
The court’s 5-4 decision was a clear example of judicial minimalism wrapped in a procedural technicality, with Chief Justice John Roberts penning the majority opinion and quietly nudging the states back to the waiting room of legal involvement. Apparently, the justices decided that the states had arrived fashionably late to the legal party and would therefore not be allowed in through the back door.
At the heart of the case was a regulation defining which bodies of water fall under federal authority for pollution control under the Clean Water Act, a definition that, for decades, has caused more confusion than a weather report in April and led to more litigation than a popular soap opera character’s will. Republican attorneys general from 14 states had politely but emphatically knocked on the courtroom door after the Biden administration revised the rule, hoping to revive a separate court challenge that had already been dismissed.
The Supreme Court’s decision rested not on the merits of the water regulation itself, but rather on the principle that the states were simply a bit too tardy in their attempt to join the legal fray, much like showing up at a potluck with a half-eaten casserole after everyone has already moved on to dessert. The justices were primarily interested in ensuring procedural decorum remained intact.
Justice Clarence Thomas led the dissent, joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, with Thomas arguing that the states had perfectly legitimate reasons to intervene and had watched from the sidelines for long enough. In essence, his message was: if you’re going to affect someone’s pond, the least you can do is let them into the courtroom to have a word about it.
Nevertheless, with the procedural gavel coming down, the majority found no compelling reason to disrupt the usual flow of judicial traffic. A ruling on the rule’s substance may still come another day, in another case, perhaps with better timing and more snacks.
For now, the states are left to ponder the metaphysics of federal wetlands from outside the courthouse perimeter.
The floodgates of justice remain closed to those without impeccable timing.