Law Center Search Results

The NAM filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court addressing the question of how federal courts should interpret split decisions from the Supreme Court where fewer than five justices agree on a common rationale for deciding a case. One example of such a decision of importance to manufacturers is the Court’s 4-1-4 decision in Rapanos v. United States, which involves the scope of federal jurisdiction over “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. Lower courts have taken divergent approaches to interpreting such split decisions, which has caused confusion and chaos. Clarity in this case would help make any new “waters of the United States” rule less susceptible to legal challenge and provide needed clarity for other laws and regulations, thereby fostering certainty for manufacturers. The NAM’s brief highlighted Rapanos as the poster child for why the Court must resolve this judicial confusion and supplied the Court with arguments to protect the validity of the “waters of the United States” rule. The Court resolved the merits of the case without addressing the interpretive questions, which is a missed opportunity that will result in continued confusion among the lower courts in interpreting split decisions from the Supreme Court.