S. 5262 explained  ·  119th Congress  ·  Pending in Congress

Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2026

Create a free account or sign in to follow S. 5262 and get alerts. Policy area: Environmental Protection Create a free account or sign in to follow the Environmental Protection policy area and get alerts. ▲ 75 days since action Sponsor: Rand Paul, KY-Senate, R → Congress.gov

Cosponsors: 2 (0 D, 2 R) · per Congress.gov, 2026-10-14

Introduced: 2026-08-05

Latest action (2026-08-05): Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

What S. 5262 does, in plain terms

The Congressional Research Service has not published a summary of S. 5262 yet. Its official title: “Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2026”.

Constitution Index

“VFA Constitution grade”

Not graded yet

S. 5262 has not been graded yet. New measures with an official summary are graded daily under the published rubric.

The Framers

“Founders’ Verdict”

CONDITIONAL

Confidence 1.00

Archived SI output (machine-generated)

No editorial review recorded. This historical SI verdict was machine-generated by software and predates the review desk; check it against the official bill text.

Synthesis

The bill is constitutional only if the definition of 'navigable waters' is strictly confined to waters that are actually navigable or that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and if it explicitly preserves state authority over non-navigable, intrastate waters. Any extension to isolated, intrastate waters lacking a clear nexus to interstate commerce would exceed Congress's enumerated powers under the Commerce Clause and violate the Tenth Amendment.

Hamilton CONDITIONAL

The federal government's authority over navigable waters derives from the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), which grants Congress power to regulate commerce among the several states. The term 'navigable waters' has been construed to include waters that are navigable-in-fact or that form part of a continuous interstate waterway. However, the proposed clarification must not extend federal jurisdiction to purely intrastate, non-navigable waters that have no substantial effect on interstate commerce, as that would exceed the enumerated powers and upset the balance between federal a…

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 Federalist No. 32 Federalist No. 83
Jefferson CONDITIONAL

The Congress has authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate waters that are actually navigable and used in interstate commerce. However, extending federal jurisdiction to all waters, including isolated or intrastate ones, would exceed the limited powers delegated by the states. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states those powers not expressly granted, and the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures that could arise from expansive federal regulation of private lands. Therefore, I would find this bill constitutional only if the definition of 'navigable water…

Amendment X Amendment IV Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
Madison CONDITIONAL

This bill seeks to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by clarifying the definition of 'navigable waters.' Under the Constitution, Congress possesses the power to regulate commerce among the several states, which includes the authority over navigable waters used in interstate commerce. However, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states or the people all powers not delegated to the United States. The definition of 'navigable waters' must be strictly confined to those waters that are actually navigable and affect interstate commerce, as the commerce power is not a general police power…

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce Clause) Tenth Amendment Federalist No. 45
Marshall CONDITIONAL

This bill seeks to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by clarifying the definition of 'navigable waters.' Under the Constitution, Congress possesses the power to regulate commerce among the several states, which includes the authority to govern navigable waters used in interstate commerce, as established in Gibbons v. Ogden. However, the Constitution does not grant Congress an unlimited police power over all waters within a state. The definition must be confined to waters that are actually navigable or that bear a substantial relation to interstate commerce, consistent with the nece…

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce Clause) Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Report an error in this Founders' Verdict
No account needed. Or email hello@valuesforamerica.com. How reports are handled.

What should pass

“VFA SI Solution”

No solution yet

A sourced SI draft appears here once it passes automated checks (Constitution citation, source verification, independent SI critic). How publication works.

Share card

1200×675 PNG for X, Threads, LinkedIn and messages. Free to share with a link back to this page.

For journalists and bloggers

“Embed this grade”

Free to use with the link back. The badge and card update when the grade changes. Embed terms →

VFA Constitution grade for S. 5262

← Back to the Republic