- Court: United States Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Environmental Law
- Date Filed: May 25, 2023
- Case #: 21-454
- Judge(s)/Court Below: ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, GORSUCH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., joined.
- Full Text Opinion
Michael and Chantell Sackett, (“the Sacketts”) were cited by the EPA under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The EPA found that backfilling their property with dirt and rocks constituted improper dredge and fill because their property was “adjacent to” a non-navigable creek that feeds into Priest Lake (a traditionally navigable body of water). The Sacketts appealed the Ninth Circuit’s holding that the CWA covers wetlands with a “significant nexus” to traditional waterways, arguing that their property does not qualify as “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). Section 404 of the CWA prohibits discharging “pollutants” into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). The EPA interpreted “the waters of the United States” to include “[a]ll ... waters” that “could affect interstate or foreign commerce,” as well as “[w]etlands adjacent” to those waters. 40 C.F.R. §§ 230.3(s)(3), (7) (2008). “[A]djacent” was defined to mean not just “bordering” or “contiguous,” but also “neighboring.” § 230.3(b). The Court held that the CWA extends to only those “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right,” so that they are “indistinguishable” from those waters. Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 739, 126 S.Ct. 2208, (2006). The Court reasoned that the Rapanos definition aligns with the definition of “waters,” “navigable waters,” and other references to “waters” in the CWA, as well as historical governance of waters under the Rivers and Harbors Act. Further, regarding “adjacent wetlands” the court found the EPA’s definition disrupted state and federal authority of water regulation. Therefore, regulation of wetlands should be compatible with the CWA’s intended jurisdiction of traditional navigable waters. REVERSED and REMANDED.