2001年底，即将卸任的克林顿政府对该年早些时候颁布的修订后的砷规则进行了详尽的科学审查，支持将已有60年历史的联邦饮用水砷标准从50微克/升收紧至10微克/升，布什政府目前正试图击退一场挑战该规则合宪性以及29年前的《安全饮用水法案》（SDWA）本身的诉讼。在1月21日提交给美国的简报中 哥伦比亚特区上诉法院， 司法部和司法部的律师 司法部和美国环境保护局 美国环保局（USEPA）详细说明 他们的案件反驳了内布拉斯加州的指控 以及SDWA 总的来说，尤其是砷的规律 超过联邦权力的限制 最高法院设立的国家活动 法院对商业的解释 第10条和第10修正案 第一修正案的自由 语言保护。 本文总结了 质疑和支持 砷规则和SDWA的合法性 根据宪法规定 内布拉斯加州引用。

After concluding in late 2001 that an exhaustive scientific review of the revised arsenic rule promulgated earlier that year by the outgoing Clinton Administration supported tightening the 60-year-old federal drinking water standard for arsenic from 50 to 10 ug/L, the Bush Administration is now trying to fend off a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the rule as well as of the 29-year-old Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) itself. In a January 21 brief filed with the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, attorneys from both the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) spelled out their case countering claims by Nebraska and several water systems that the SDWA in general and the arsenic rule in particular exceed the limits on federal powers over state activities established by Supreme Court interpretations of the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment and violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection. This article summarizes the arguments challenging and supporting the legality of the arsenic rule and the SDWA according to the constitutional provisions cited by Nebraska.