Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency

Michael and Chantell Sackett purchased a residential lot in Idaho and began backfilling it to build a home. The Environmental Protection Agency ordered them to stop, claiming the lot contained wetlands subject to the Clean Water Act and threatened fines of over $40,000 per day. The Sacketts sued, arguing their property was not regulated wetlands. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in their favor on May 25, 2023, holding that the Clean Water Act covers only wetlands with a continuous surface connection to traditional navigable waters, such that the wetland is indistinguishable from those waters. This narrowed the federal government's jurisdiction, reversing the Ninth Circuit.

The Supreme Court issued a 9-0 judgment, vacating the Ninth Circuit decision and remanding the case. Justice Alito authored the majority opinion, which adopted a narrower test requiring wetlands to have a continuous surface connection with relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water forming traditional navigable waters.

The central dispute was how to interpret the term “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act, specifically whether wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters are subject to federal regulation even without a continuous surface water connection.

The ruling significantly reduced federal authority to regulate wetlands, potentially removing Clean Water Act protections from millions of acres. It was praised by property rights advocates, developers, and agricultural groups, while drawing strong criticism from environmental organizations and the Biden administration, which argued it undermines water quality protection across the United States.