“When the Courts start having to deal with this precedent, a whole lot of “regulatory agencies” are going to discover their wings have been not just clipped, but defeathered. “
Not sure I follow you.
Please explain further.
By denying the Federal Government "police powers" -- agencies like EPA who try ordering landowners to make improvements to fallow land cannot.
The Roberts ruling restricts regulation to actual activity. Inactivity is not permitted to be regulated - compelled - or cajoled.
This should also put a knife into the endangered species act as well.
Assuming crafty lawyers can make use of this ruling, agencies can no longer just issue orders to people who are not engaged in activity.
Picture a situation where someone buys a plot of land. EPA comes on the scene and demands a bunch of improvements.
But wait -- merely owning land is not "activity" per se. If the landowner is doing nothing with the land, there is nothing to regulate.
That's how I see it. A crafty lawyer can likely make hay of this and it explains why Schumer is unhappy. When Schumer is unhappy, there has to be a reason for it and that reason is usually good for America.