Political speech, timestamped and in context

Brett Kavanaugh: “This court has consistently said that air and water pollution are different in our federal enclaves.”

Featuring: Brett Kavanaugh, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court | National

'Why Are You Resisting That?': Brett Kavanaugh Asks Lawyer About Air And Water Pollution Difference

Published October 5, 2026

Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, on the tobacco and opioid. Opioid question that Justice Kagan asked, and she alluded to this, I thought the answer was that This court has consistently said that air and water pollution are different in our federal enclaves. That is undoubtedly true. With regard to. Why are you resisting that? I just thought. I'm not resisting that. There's a lot of constitutional theory being tossed around, but we have four precedents on point. (00:12–00:20)

STATEMENT

Asserts that the court has a consistent stance on the differentiation between air and water pollution in federal contexts.

This is an excerpt from a raw transcript. The assertions have not been audited or verified. Tap the video to view the source footage and understand the context.

See the main statements from Brett Kavanaugh in this video

“Interstate air and water pollution are matters for federal law unless Congress specifically preserves state law.”
Asserts that federal law governs interstate pollution unless Congress allows state law to apply.00:44-00:54
“Willette did allow the Vermont affected party to sue the New York polluter under New York State law.”
Asserts that a precedent exists where a state law was used for interstate pollution litigation.01:57-02:07
“Clean Air Act is very significant in terms of the responsibilities it puts on states.”
Asserts the importance of the Clean Air Act in defining state responsibilities.03:55-04:05