Sackett v. EPA
598 U.S. 651
SCOTUS2023Background
- Michael and Chantell Sackett backfilled a small lot near Priest Lake, Idaho, to prepare for building; EPA issued a compliance order asserting the property contained wetlands subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA) and threatened heavy penalties.
- EPA treated the Sacketts’ wetlands as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed a creek that fed Priest Lake (designated a traditional navigable water); EPA relied on a “significant nexus” analysis grouping nearby wetlands.
- The Sacketts sued under the Administrative Procedure Act; after remand and summary judgment for EPA in district court, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that adjacent wetlands with a significant nexus to navigable waters are CWA jurisdictional.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the proper test for when wetlands qualify as “waters of the United States.”
- The Court held the CWA’s term “waters” denotes relatively permanent bodies of water (streams, rivers, lakes, oceans) and that only wetlands with a continuous surface connection to such waters—i.e., indistinguishable from the water—are within CWA jurisdiction; it rejected the agencies’ broad significant‑nexus/neighboring definitions and reversed the Ninth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sackett) | Defendant's Argument (EPA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CWA’s “waters of the United States” includes the Sacketts’ wetlands | The lot’s wetlands are not “waters of the United States” because they lack a continuous surface connection to a relatively permanent covered water | EPA argued the wetlands are jurisdictional based on a significant nexus to covered waters and because “adjacent” includes neighboring wetlands separated by features | Held: Not jurisdictional — CWA covers only relatively permanent waters and adjacent wetlands that are indistinguishable from those waters via continuous surface connection; significant‑nexus alone insufficient |
| Proper test for CWA jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands | Court should adopt a clear, text‑based test limiting jurisdiction to continuous surface connection to covered waters | EPA sought deference to its rule: ‘‘adjacent’’ includes neighboring wetlands and significant‑nexus determinations | Held: Adopted Rapanos plurality test (continuous surface connection/indistinguishability); declined to defer to EPA’s significant‑nexus rule |
| Whether §1344(g)(1) authorized EPA/Corps to treat nearby but non‑abutting wetlands as "waters" | Sackett: §1344(g)(1) doesn’t expand §1362(7); adjacent wetlands referred to are those that are part of covered waters | EPA: §1344(g)(1)’s reference to “including wetlands adjacent thereto” ratified broader agency definition of adjacent | Held: §1344(g)(1) presumes some wetlands are waters, but it does not authorize treating nearby/separated wetlands that are distinguishable from waters as part of “waters of the United States” |
| Whether judicial deference and background rules permit EPA’s broad definition given CWA penalties and federalism concerns | Sackett: Broad agency interpretation raises vagueness and federalism problems and requires clear congressional authorization | EPA: Authorities and history support deference to agency rulemaking and interpretation | Held: Rejected deference to the agency’s expansive rule; emphasized clear‑statement concerns, vagueness risk given criminal/civil penalties, and federalism |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121 (1985) (deferred to Corps on wetlands actually abutting navigable water and recognized transition between water and land)
- Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006) (plurality and Kennedy concurrence produced competing tests; plurality endorsed "indistinguishable/continuous surface connection" test; Kennedy articulated "significant nexus" test)
- Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (rejected migratory‑bird basis for jurisdiction and emphasized limits on treating isolated intrastate ponds as "waters of the United States")
- Hawkes Co. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 578 U.S. 590 (2016) (administrative jurisdictional determinations are reviewable; discussed consequences of expansive jurisdictional claims)
- The Daniel Ball, 77 U.S. 557 (1871) (canonical definition of "navigable waters" as waters used or susceptible for use as highways for interstate/foreign commerce)
- United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U.S. 377 (1940) (applied navigability concept to determine scope of federal authority over waters)