Supreme Court hears lively debate on protecting wetlands, led in part by Justice Jackson
By Rachel Siegel
Staff Writer
Justice Samuel Alito, dressed in a black robe and wearing a black bow tie, began the first day of oral arguments in the Supreme Court challenge to the Obama Administration’s decision to expand oil drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska on Monday. As Alito began his address, he began by pointing out that the stakes for the nation in the case before the Court are high. “This case is about the fundamental right to access,” Alito said. “This case is about the right to hunt, fish and recreate, that is the fundamental right, and that’s what we’re talking about.”
He then took the audience through a tour of the history of the case.
“This case began with the case of Florida Keys Blockaded,” Alito said, referring to the case that challenged the federal government’s authority to prevent drilling in the Keys. “The case was first decided in Florida Keys Blockaded, the first case in this Court in which anyone was allowed to bring a lawsuit in which a landowner was arguing that the government had no lawful authority to prevent drilling in the Keys.”
Alito then turned the case against the Administration, and, the audience could hear, focused on the idea that the decision to expand drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska had changed and altered the Court’s understanding of the Constitution in this case.
Justice Samuel Alito, dressed in a black robe and wearing a black bow tie, began the first day of oral arguments in the Supreme Court challenge to the Obama Administration’s decision to expand oil drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska on Monday. As Alito began his address, he began by pointing out that the stakes for the nation in the case before the Court are high. “This case is about the fundamental right to access,” Alito said. “This case is about the right to hunt, fish and recreate, that is the fundamental right,