Sackett v. EPA

Sackett v. EPA
Case name	Sackett v. EPA
Court	Supreme Court of the United States
Decided	2023
Docket	21-454
Citation	598 U.S. ___ (2023)
Holding	Limits the scope of the Clean Water Act by narrowing the definition of "waters of the United States"
Majority	Brett Kavanaugh
Majority vote	5–4
Dissent	Sonia Sotomayor
Laws applied	Clean Water Act; Administrative Procedure Act

Sackett v. EPA was a 2023 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that substantially narrowed federal regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act by rejecting the longstanding "significant nexus" test. The ruling, authored by Brett Kavanaugh for a 5–4 majority, altered the relationship among landowners, federal agencies, and state regulators including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers. The case immediately prompted disputes among stakeholders such as Sierra Club, National Association of Home Builders, and Environmental Defense Fund about permitting, enforcement, and statutory interpretation.

Background and lower-court proceedings

The dispute began when Michael and Chantell Sackett, owners of property in Idaho, filled and graded parcels near a seasonal water feature, prompting an enforcement order from the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act. The Sackets challenged the EPA order, invoking administrative review rights alongside procedural protections afforded by the Administrative Procedure Act and invoking precedent from earlier United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes analyses. After initial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, which applied guidance shaped by the Army Corps of Engineers and relied upon tests articulated in Rapanos v. United States, the case proceeded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed federal jurisdiction under the "significant nexus" framework developed by Justice Anthony Kennedy in Rapanos.

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to resolve inter-circuit disagreement over whether remote, seasonal, or ephemeral features qualify as "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act. In a 5–4 decision, the Court rejected the Kennedy "significant nexus" standard and adopted a narrower rule that emphasizes relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water and a continuous surface connection. The majority remanded portions of the dispute to lower courts to apply the new standard, constraining regulatory reach of both the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

Legal reasoning and majority opinion

The majority opinion, written by Brett Kavanaugh, leaned on textualist and originalist interpretive approaches associated with jurists like Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch. The Court examined statutory text from the Clean Water Act and legislative history tied to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, concluding that Congress did not delegate authority to regulate isolated, intermittent, or ephemeral features absent a continuous surface connection to navigable waters such as those discussed in United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes. The opinion critiqued the "significant nexus" test derived from Rapanos v. United States as insufficiently grounded in text and inconsistent with limits on agency deference under doctrines influenced by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and subsequent treatments of administrative authority. The decision engaged with precedents including Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers and County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund to delineate boundaries between federal jurisdiction and state prerogatives.

Dissenting opinions

The dissent, led by Sonia Sotomayor and joined by justices aligned with interpretive approaches exemplified by Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan in other cases, argued that the majority's textual narrowing undermined cooperative federalism embedded in the Clean Water Act and weakened protections affirmed in cases such as Rapanos v. United States and County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund. Dissenters warned of harms to water quality enforcement relied upon by organizations like Natural Resources Defense Council and Trout Unlimited and criticized the majority for displacing longstanding agency expertise from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers.

Immediate regulatory and environmental impacts

Following the ruling, federal agencies revised or signaled plans to revise regulatory guidance, affecting permits under the Clean Water Act administered by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers. State agencies, including those in California, Texas, and Florida, faced increased pressure to fill regulatory gaps or coordinate interstate responses, engaging actors such as the Association of State Wetland Managers and the National Governors Association. Environmental organizations including Sierra Club and Audubon Society expressed concerns about potential increases in wetland loss, while industry groups like the National Association of Home Builders and American Petroleum Institute hailed the decision for reducing permitting burdens. Litigation over agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act and reinterpretations of navigable waters proliferated in federal district courts and circuits.

Subsequent litigation and legal implications

The decision spawned immediate challenges to new rulemaking and agency guidance, with states and non-governmental organizations filing suits invoking Administrative Procedure Act claims and constitutional doctrines such as the Tenth Amendment and Take Care Clause-adjacent arguments. Lower courts grappled with applying the Supreme Court's standard to factual records in wetlands cases across circuits including the Ninth Circuit and the Fifth Circuit, prompting comparisons to doctrinal shifts after decisions like Shelby County v. Holder and Michigan v. EPA. Legal scholars debated long-term effects on statutory interpretation, administrative deference, and environmental federalism, noting potential legislative responses in the United States Congress to clarify the Clean Water Act's scope and reconcile interstate differences among regulatory regimes.

Category:United States Supreme Court cases Category:Environmental law cases