No. The government cannot regulate the Sacketts' land just because it's nearby a water source. The Clean Water Act is for 'waters,' which means obvious bodies of water like rivers and lakes. For a wetland to count, it must be so connected to a river or lake that it's basically part of it, like a swamp that blends right into a river. The government's 'significant connection' test is too confusing and gives it too much power over private property.

No. The Court made the right call, but the law is even stricter than it said. The government's power under this law is really only for waters that can be used for shipping and business between states, like a big commercial river. The Sacketts' property isn't anywhere near something like that.

No, the Sacketts should win, but the Court's new rule is too extreme. The law protects wetlands that are 'adjacent,' which just means 'nearby.' So, a wetland separated from a river by a levee or a sand dune should still be protected. The Sacketts' land is too far away and doesn't have a barrier like that, but the Court's new 'must be touching' rule goes too far and will harm the environment.

No, but the Court is wrong about the law. Congress clearly said it wanted to protect 'adjacent' (nearby) wetlands. The majority ignored the plain words of the law to make a political decision limiting the government's ability to fight pollution. The Court is acting like a policymaker instead of a judge, which is not its job.

Yes, the law only protects wetlands that you can't really tell apart from other big waters like rivers or lakes. The Sacketts' land doesn't qualify because there's a man-made barrier separating it from the lake.

Agrees with the main decision but talks more about the history of how the government can regulate waters.

Thinks the main decision is too narrow and doesn't agree with how they interpreted the law.

Also thinks the decision is too narrow and doesn't agree with the new rule the majority used.

No. The Clean Water Act does not grant the EPA jurisdiction over wetlands that lack a continuous surface connection to a covered body of water; the 'significant nexus' test is not a valid standard for determining the Act's reach. The CWA's use of the term 'waters' refers only to relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water such as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes. While the Act's reference to 'adjacent wetlands' in §1344(g)(1) confirms some wetlands are covered, it includes only those that are 'as a practical matter indistinguishable from' a covered water. This requires a 'continuous surface connection,' making it difficult to determine where the water ends and the wetland begins. The EPA's 'significant nexus' test is rejected because it lacks a textual basis, is impermissibly vague given the CWA's severe criminal penalties, and infringes upon the traditional power of states to regulate land and water use.

No. The Court is correct to reject the significant nexus test, but the CWA’s jurisdiction is even narrower than the majority holds, being limited by the terms 'navigable' and 'of the United States' to Congress's traditional Commerce Clause authority over the channels of interstate commerce. The CWA's text must be interpreted according to its long-standing meaning, which concerns waters that are, were, or could be used as highways for interstate or foreign commerce. The EPA and Army Corps have improperly expanded their jurisdiction based on a New Deal-era 'substantial effects' test, which SWANCC already rejected in the CWA context. The Sacketts' property is not covered because it lacks a continuous surface connection, the nearby water features are not navigable highways of commerce, and Priest Lake itself is a purely intrastate lake whose connection to interstate commerce is too attenuated.

No. The 'significant nexus' test is not the correct standard, and the Sacketts' property is not covered, but the majority's 'continuous surface connection' test is improperly narrow and departs from the statutory text. The CWA covers 'adjacent' wetlands, and the ordinary meaning of 'adjacent' is broader than 'adjoining' or 'touching.' Based on the text, longstanding agency practice, and precedent, 'adjacent' includes wetlands separated from a covered water by a man-made dike or barrier, or a natural feature like a river berm or beach dune. By rewriting 'adjacent' to mean only 'adjoining,' the Court's test excludes long-regulated wetlands and will have significant negative repercussions for water quality and flood control.

No, on these facts, but the majority's new test is incorrect because it ignores the plain meaning of the statute to achieve a desired policy outcome. The CWA expressly covers wetlands 'adjacent' to other covered waters, and 'adjacent' means nearby, not just touching. The majority’s 'continuous surface connection' test rewrites the statute to mean 'adjoining,' effectively substituting its own policy judgment for Congress's to limit a broad environmental protection scheme. This move is an illegitimate use of judicial power to narrow a clear and ambitious statute, similar to the Court's recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA, appointing the Court as the national decision-maker on environmental policy.

Yes. The Clean Water Act extends only to wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to bodies that are 'waters of the United States' in their own right, making them indistinguishable from those waters. The wetlands on the Sacketts' property do not meet this criterion because they are separated from the navigable water by a man-made barrier.

Concurs with the majority but emphasizes the historical context of Congress' authority over navigable waters and the traditional limits of the Commerce Clause.

Concurs in judgment only, disagreeing with the majority's interpretation of 'adjacent' and emphasizing the broader statutory purpose of the Clean Water Act.

Concurs in judgment only, disagreeing with the majority's new test for determining adjacency and maintaining that the Clean Water Act covers more than just adjoining wetlands.

Sackett v. EPA

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot