Westergaard McLamb

Until now, the courts had normally maintained that fish have specific inalienable rights and that amongst them is the appropriate to swim in and out of any waterway they can navigate.

The ruling was, however, not the resounding victory the land owners had hoped for, since it only applied to newly arriving fish the ones currently situated in the wetlands could continue to swim there.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of two Michigan land owners who maintained that fish had no correct to swim in the water on their house and, as a outcome, the developers ought to be capable to grace the wetlands with a shopping mall and a condominium.

Until now, the courts had generally maintained that fish have certain inalienable rights and that among them is the right to swim in and out of any waterway they can navigate.

The ruling was, nonetheless, not the resounding victory the land owners had hoped for, because it only applied to newly arriving fish the ones already positioned in the wetlands could continue to swim there.

The splintered outcome opened the dam to far more litigation in the reduce courts, and attorneys for the ACLU vowed to defend the rights of all fish to enter and exit any wetland at will.

The ruling also muddies the Clean Water Act and may possibly spur debate on no matter whether or not fish should be permitted to swim in water at all, since their presence might shock individuals who look into a glass of water ahead of they drink it.

Coming down solidly against the fish, Justice Scalia maintained that fish rights had gone "beyond parody," because they now seemed to cover even "man-created drainage ditches and dry arroyos in the middle of the desert."

Justice Stevens, however, wrote that the wetlands "had surface connections to tributaries of traditionally navigable waters" and so the fish must be in a position to swim there without undue hindrance.

Justice Souter wondered why Congress would permit fish in rivers but rule them out of waterways and wetlands that feed them, preserving, "All you have got to do is let a fish swim into a tributary just before you can arrest it for trespassing."

But Justice Scalia shot back that such logic would grant fish the appropriate to swim in "a storm drain, because for the duration of heavy rains it could be regarded as navigable." He went on to say, "I recommend it's absurd to call storm drains 'waters of the United States.'