Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
Headline: Clean Water Act bird-habitat rule blocked as Court strikes down Corps' Migratory Bird Rule, limiting federal authority over isolated, intrastate ponds and preserving state control over many land-use decisions.
Holding:
- Limits federal permits for isolated, nonadjacent ponds used by migratory birds.
- Shifts more land and water use decisions to states and local governments.
- Creates uncertainty until Congress or agencies clarify Clean Water Act scope.
Summary
Background
SWANCC, a consortium of 23 suburban Chicago towns, bought an abandoned sand-and-gravel site with permanent and seasonal ponds and planned a municipal balefill. The Corps of Engineers first said the ponds were not wetlands but later asserted federal jurisdiction under its 1986 "Migratory Bird Rule" because migratory birds used the ponds. The Corps denied a Section 404 permit, SWANCC sued, and lower courts reached differing results before the case reached this Court.
Reasoning
The core question was whether Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act fairly extends to isolated, intrastate ponds used by migratory birds. The majority concluded it does not. The Court found the statute and its prior decision in Riverside Bayview do not support applying the Corps' Migratory Bird Rule to ponds that are not adjacent to navigable waters. The Court refused to defer to the Corps under Chevron because accepting the rule would raise serious federalism and constitutional concerns and there was no clear statement from Congress authorizing such broad authority. The Court reversed the Seventh Circuit and did not decide the separate Commerce Clause question.
Real world impact
The ruling prevents the Corps from asserting Section 404 jurisdiction over isolated ponds based solely on migratory bird habitat under the Migratory Bird Rule. This reduces federal permitting over similar inland, nonadjacent waters and leaves more land and water use decisions to states and local governments unless Congress or the agencies adopt new rules. The decision narrows the statutory reach but does not resolve all constitutional questions.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens, joined by three Justices, dissented, arguing Congress intended broad CWA coverage, that Congress had effectively acquiesced to the Corps' regulations, that agency deference was appropriate, and that the Commerce Clause could support this regulation; he would have affirmed the lower court.
Opinions in this case:
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?