Today, FreedomWorks Foundation submitted a formal comment opposing a proposed rule by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would repeal President Trump's revised definition of "Waters of the United States."

This week the lawsuit over the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) took its next step at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties challenging this massive power grab include dozens of states and business groups. In their filings to the court, the challengers spelled out the illegality and unconstitutionality of the rule as well as describing the corrupt and dishonest means the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used to rush the rulemaking to completion.

Earlier this month a federal court in California ruled that a farmer plowing his land without a permit from the federal government is breaking the law. In 2013, the Army Corps of Engineers, without any notice or due process, ordered the owners of Duarte Nursery to cease use of their land for allegedly violating the Clean Water Act (CWA). The violation: plowing. The California court agreed with the federal government’s action, despite the fact the CWA specifically exempts normal agricultural activities like plowing from regulation.

Given the harassment and everyday burdens that federal bureaucrats subject small businesses and families to, it seems obvious that decisions could be challenged by the basic process of judicial review. This right, however, was apparently not entirely evident. The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously in favor of property owners in a decision that weakens the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act. The ruling in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc gives landowners and businesses the right to go to court when federal regulators trample their rights to property and due process.

On Friday, the EPA was dealt another loss by a federal judge as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit authorized a national stay against the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule under the Clean Water Act. This comes after a federal judge in North Dakota had already granted a preliminary injunction against the EPA in August, only a few hours before the rule was about to be implemented.

A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction against the EPA, stopping a controversial water regulation in 13 states. The states in question are suing to stop the new water rule, which would violate private property rights and substantially harm individuals and businesses alike. The injunction stops the EPA from enforcing its rule until the results of the lawsuit are decided.