Political speech, timestamped and in context

Brett Kavanaugh: “Willette did allow the Vermont affected party to sue the New York polluter under New York State law.”

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

Now, the wrinkle, and this is, I think, goes back to the chief's question, the one wrinkle, it's a little. And Justice Gorsuch, is a little bit of a problem for you, is that Willette did allow the Vermont affected party to sue the New York polluter under New York State law. What do we do with that? Give me the explanation you would provide for how we deal with that if your side is to prevail and not go back on choice of law. (01:57–02:07)

STATEMENT

Asserts that a precedent exists where a state law was used for interstate pollution litigation.

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

“This court has consistently said that air and water pollution are different in our federal enclaves.”
Asserts that the court has a consistent stance on the differentiation between air and water pollution in federal contexts.00:12-00:20
“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
“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