Trump has begun another trade war. Here's a timeline of how we got here
Canada's leader laments lost friendship with US in town that sheltered stranded Americans after 9/11
Chinese EV giant BYD's fourth-quarter profit leaps 73%
You're an American in another land? Prepare to talk about the why and how of Trump 2.0
Chalk talk: Star power, top teams and No. 5 seeds headline the women's March Madness Sweet 16
Purdue returns to Sweet 16 with 76-62 win over McNeese in March Madness
By John Kruzel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Environmental Protection Agency in a ruling on Tuesday involving a wastewater treatment facility owned by the city of San Francisco that could make it harder for regulators to police water pollution.
The justices, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the EPA exceeded its authority under a landmark anti-pollution law by including vague restrictions in a permit issued for the wastewater treatment facility, which empties into the Pacific Ocean. The city had sued to challenge the EPA restrictions.
The ruling, authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, reversed a decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that had upheld the permit.
Alito wrote that the EPA exceeded its powers under the landmark Clean Water Act of 1972 by imposing undefined requirements on permit-holders related to water quality standards in the receiving body of water.
"This case involves provisions that do not spell out what a permittee must do or refrain from doing; rather, they make a permittee responsible for the quality of the water in the body of water into which the permittee discharges pollutants," Alito wrote.
"When a permit contains such requirements, a permittee that punctiliously follows every specific requirement in its permit may nevertheless face crushing penalties if the quality of the water in its receiving waters falls below the applicable standards," Alito added.
Water quality standards are devised by states and subject to federal approval.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a dissent that was joined by the court's three liberal members.
"EPA is required to issue the limitations necessary to ensure that the water quality standards are met," Barrett wrote. "So taking a tool away from EPA may make it harder for the agency to issue the permits that municipalities and businesses need in order for their discharges to be lawful."
The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has limited the EPA's reach in recent years as part of a series of rulings curbing the power federal regulatory agencies.
(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)
