Sackett v. EPA
Headline: Court limits Clean Water Act reach, rejecting the agencies’ broad “significant nexus” test and ruling only relatively permanent waters and wetlands with continuous surface connection are federal waters, narrowing EPA authority over landowners.
Holding: The Court held that the Clean Water Act covers only relatively permanent waters and only wetlands continuously surface-connected to those waters, rejecting the agencies’ broader "significant nexus" test.
- Narrows federal reach to wetlands only with continuous surface connection.
- Reduces risk of criminal penalties for landowners working on non-connected soggy land.
- Forces EPA and Army Corps to revise many permitting decisions and guidance.
Summary
Background
Michael and Chantell Sackett, homeowners near Priest Lake, Idaho, bought a lot and began backfilling it with dirt to prepare for a house. The Environmental Protection Agency told them the property contained wetlands, ordered restoration, and threatened penalties of over $40,000 per day. The EPA treated the wetlands as federal “waters” because they lay near a ditch that fed a creek and then Priest Lake. The Sacketts sued; lower courts applied the agencies’ “significant nexus” approach and ruled for the EPA.
Reasoning
The central question was what Congress meant by “the waters of the United States.” The Court held that the term refers to relatively permanent bodies of water (like rivers and lakes) and covers adjacent wetlands only when they are indistinguishable from those waters because of a continuous surface connection. The Court rejected the agencies’ broader “significant nexus” test, raised concerns about vagueness and federal-state balance, and said parties asserting federal jurisdiction must show both a qualifying water and a continuous surface connection with the wetland. The Ninth Circuit’s judgment was reversed.
Real world impact
The ruling narrows when the EPA and Army Corps can claim Clean Water Act jurisdiction over wetlands. Landowners who disturb soil on wetlands that are not continuously connected to a covered water face reduced risk of criminal prosecution or crushing civil fines. The case is sent back to lower courts for further proceedings under the Court’s new test.
Dissents or concurrances
Several Justices wrote separately: one emphasized historical navigability limits, another would read “adjacent” more broadly to include wetlands separated by berms or dikes, and one concurred only in the judgment.
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?