Sackett v. EPA
Headline: Court limits Clean Water Act wetlands coverage to permanent waters and adjoining wetlands with continuous surface connections, reducing EPA’s ability to regulate many nearby but not directly connected wetlands and easing landowner burdens.
Holding: The Court held that the Clean Water Act covers only relatively permanent bodies of water and adjacent wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to those waters, rejecting the broader "significant nexus" test.
- Limits EPA authority over wetlands not continuously connected to covered waters.
- Reduces developers’ risk of fines for filling land not adjoining covered waters.
- Returns more land-use control to states and local property owners.
Summary
Background
Michael and Chantell Sackett, homeowners who bought a lot near Priest Lake, Idaho, filled the parcel with dirt while preparing to build a house. The Environmental Protection Agency told the Sacketts their lot contained protected wetlands and ordered them to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day. The EPA treated the wetlands as "waters of the United States" because they were near a ditch that fed a creek and then the lake. After losing in the District Court and the Ninth Circuit, the Sacketts asked the Supreme Court to decide the question.
Reasoning
The key issue was what Congress meant by "the waters of the United States" and when a wetland counts as covered. The Court held that the Act’s word “waters” refers to relatively permanent bodies of water such as rivers, lakes, and streams, and that adjacent wetlands are covered only when they are essentially indistinguishable from those waters because of a continuous surface connection. The Court rejected the broader "significant nexus" test the agencies had used and criticized that test for producing vague, sweeping exposure for ordinary land-use activities. Applying the Court’s test, the Sacketts’ wetlands were distinguishable from covered waters.
Real world impact
The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with this narrower rule. The decision reduces the range of wetlands the EPA can treat as automatically covered and will affect how often landowners must seek Corps jurisdictional determinations or permits. It also stresses limits on federal reach and emphasizes that states retain a primary role in land and water use.
Dissents or concurrances
Several Justices agreed with the judgment but wrote separate opinions about the proper test. One concurrence argued that the ordinary word "adjacent" can include wetlands separated by berms or dikes; another emphasized sticking closely to the statutory text and raised concerns about narrowing the Act’s reach.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?