Although the ruling is quite wonky and weedy, you don’t need to be a lawyer to understand that it’s bad news for those of us who care about the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to protect our water.

Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson provided a good explanation for us laypeople in her MSNBC column (it also explained why Kavanaugh voted with the liberals).

This week the Supreme Court significantly narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act, limiting the types of waters that can be classified as “wetlands,” and thereby protected from pollution under that act. That this is a good day for would-be polluters and a bad day for those worried about the environment is no surprise. This is a court that is going to consistently make decisions that embrace a skeptical view of the power of executive agencies to protect the environment.

The New York Times reported that former senior EPA lawyer Kevin Minoli said the decision would have “enormous practical consequences” and will affect “more than half the nation’s wetlands.” The Times also quoted Vermont Law School professor Patrick Parenteau as saying, “This is a really disastrous outcome for wetlands, which have become absolutely vital for biodiversity preservation and flood control.”

The Washington Post reported that the ruling affects the EPA’s ability to protect upstream waters in order to protect downstream water quality. “Experts say greater development upstream could result in silt and pollutants damaging downstream waters and habitat, and reduce the flood control and groundwater-recharge benefits of protected wetlands,” The Post noted.

In other words, the ruling is great news for Clarence Thomas’ benefactor, Harlan Crow.

I wonder if Clarence and Ginni Thomas will get an extra special vacation this summer.