United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes
Hypertextual Version of Primary Discussion Question 2
What texts does the Court use in Section IV of the opinion to buttress its conclusion?
This page provides the equivalent of the text of the non-hypertextual version of Question 2 but provides links to the sources mentioned.
Indented passages below indicate a place where it was necessary to re-word the original text (retained just above the indented passage) to make unique referents for each link. Italicized language in such indented passages is language from the unindented passage just above.
Note: When you follow a link, it is the first full sentence at the very top of the newly visible text that begins the relevant passage.
The Court cites not only the actual language of the rule in question, but also earlier versions of the rules, as well as the Corps' rationale for the current rule.
The actual language of the rules in question includes definitions of both "waters of the United States" and "wetlands". Earlier versions of the rules had adopted a narrower definition of "waters of the United States" and had imposed an inundation requirement on "wetlands". These texts appear in section I of the opinion. The Corps' rationale for the current rule, in contrast, appears in section IV.
It is with respect to statutes and other texts related to the legislative process that the Court consults the largest number of documents both qualitatively and quantitatively. The Court cites not only the actual provision at issue in the statute but also provisions setting forth the statute's purpose, provisions noting that the Corps' jurisdiction over certain discharges of fill is exclusive even though states may be given jurisdiction over certain other discharges, and provisions authorizing the expenditure of federal monies (by an agency other than the Corps) for wetlands research. The Court cites not only statutory language but also the language of House reports, Senate reports, Conference Committee reports, and debate on the floor of the House and the Senate.
The Court cites not only statutory language but also the language of House reports, Senate reports, Conference Committee reports, and Citations in the text of the opinion to debate on the floor of the House and the Senate occur when the Court mentions the (defeated) House-language-like Senate amendment and when the Court mentions Senator Baker's description of the breadth of the Senate's definition of waters of the United States. A citation in a footnote to debate on the floor of the House and the Senate occurs just after the mention of Senator Baker.
The Court also discusses provisions never incorporated into law: language in a bill that passed the House but was rejected by the Conference Committee, as well as House-like language proposed but not adopted in an amendment to the Senate bill.
As to court opinions, the Court cites five of its own (majority) opinions in Section IV and no other court cases. Elsewhere in the opinion, the Court cites a welter of its own majority opinions (and one concurring opinion, by Justice Brandeis) as well as the opinion below of both the District Court and the Circuit Court.
You may return to the non-hypertextual version of this page.
Return to the Riverside Bayview Homes materials home page.
Return to the Re-Authorizing the Clean Water Act home page.
Return to the Environmental Drafting and Negotiating course's home page.
For corrections, comments, and questions, please e-mail John Setear.
This page was last updated on 03/22/99.