Supreme Court Sides With Sacketts in Clean Water Act Case

May 25, 2023 View Original Article
  • Bias Rating

    52% Very Conservative

  • Reliability

    40% ReliableFair

  • Policy Leaning

    56% Very Conservative

  • Politician Portrayal

    56% Negative

Bias Score Analysis

The A.I. bias rating includes policy and politician portrayal leanings based on the author’s tone found in the article using machine learning. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral.

Sentiments

Overall Sentiment

N/A

  •   Conservative
SentenceSentimentBias
"The American Farm Bureau Federation praised the Supreme Court decision, stating EPA clearly overstepped its authority under the Clean Water Act by restricting private property owners from developing their land despite being far from the nearest navigable water."
Negative
-6% Liberal
"The Sacketts have been battling EPA since 2007 for the right to build on land the agency has deemed to be a wetland."
Negative
-10% Liberal
"The Supreme Court sided with two Idaho property owners in their ongoing wetlands dispute with EPA on Thursday, ruling EPA's use of the significant nexus test when making Clean Water Act determinations is too broad."
Negative
-20% Liberal
"In writing the 5-4 majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said EPA has misinterpreted the Clean Water Act's reach when it comes to the property owned by Michael and Chantell Sackett and that the term significant nexus isn't found in the Clean Water Act."
Negative
-20% Liberal
"Alito said in the majority opinion that the Clean Water Act's reach is far narrower than EPA has opined."
Negative
-30% Liberal
"Regan added, The Biden-Harris Administration has worked to establish a durable definition of 'waters of the United States' that safeguards our nation's waters, strengthens economic opportunity, and protects people's health while providing the clarity and certainty that farmers, ranchers, and landowners deserve."
Positive
10% Conservative
"The ruling will naturally lead to lower courts examining how the decision applies to the Biden administration's definition of waters of the U.S. that right now is under court injunctions in at least 26 states tied to two separate courts."
Negative
-4% Liberal
"Zippy Duvall, president of AFBF, then called on the Biden administration to rewrite its waters of the U.S. rule."
Negative
-6% Liberal
"EPA Administrator Michael Regan expressed disappointment in the court ruling, stating the Supreme Court decision erodes longstanding clean water protections."
Negative
-38% Liberal

Bias Meter

Extremely
Liberal

Very
Liberal

Moderately
Liberal

Somewhat Liberal

Center

Somewhat Conservative

Moderately
Conservative

Very
Conservative

Extremely
Conservative

-100%
Liberal

100%
Conservative

Bias Meter

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

47% : The American Farm Bureau Federation praised the Supreme Court decision, stating EPA "clearly overstepped its authority under the Clean Water Act by restricting private property owners from developing their land despite being far from the nearest navigable water."
45% :The Sacketts have been battling EPA since 2007 for the right to build on land the agency has deemed to be a wetland.
40% : The Supreme Court sided with two Idaho property owners in their ongoing wetlands dispute with EPA on Thursday, ruling EPA's use of the significant nexus test when making Clean Water Act determinations is too broad.
40% : In writing the 5-4 majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said EPA has misinterpreted the Clean Water Act's reach when it comes to the property owned by Michael and Chantell Sackett and that the term significant nexus isn't found in the Clean Water Act.
35% : Alito said in the majority opinion that the Clean Water Act's reach is far narrower than EPA has opined.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.

Copy link