The Supreme Court ruled in favor of two Michigan land owners who maintained that fish had no right to swim in the water on their property and, as a result, the developers should be able 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, however, not the resounding victory the land owners had hoped for, because it only applied to newly arriving fish; the ones already located in the wetlands could continue to swim there.
The splintered outcome opened the dam to more litigation in the lower 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 spur debate on whether or not fish should be permitted to swim in water at all, since their presence may shock people who look into a glass of water before they drink it.
Coming down solidly against the fish, Justice Scalia maintained that fish rights had gone “beyond parody,” because...
To view and download this full PLR article, you must be logged in. Registration is completely free. Once you create your account, you will be able to browse, search & downlod from our PLR articles database of over "1,57,897+" on 1,000's of niches and 200+ categories without paying a penny. Click here to signup...
