Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022)
 | |
| Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency | |
| Term: 2022 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: October 3, 2022 Decided: May 25, 2023 | |
| Outcome | |
| United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded | |
| Majority | |
| Chief Justice John Roberts • Samuel Alito • Amy Coney Barrett | |
| Concurring | |
| Clarence Thomas • Sonia Sotomayor (in judgment) • Elena Kagan (in judgment) • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh (in judgment) • Ketanji Brown Jackson (in judgment) | |
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency was a U.S. Supreme Court case decided on May 25, 2023, that limited the EPA's regulatory jurisdiction to wetlands with a continuous surface connection to waters of the United States. The case concerned the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA).[1]
The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 3, 2022, during the court's October 2022-2023 term.
The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.
Why it matters: The decision in the case limited the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory authority of wetlands under the Clean Water Act.
Timeline
The following timeline details key events in this case:
- May 25, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- October 3, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
- January 24, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
- September 22, 2021: Michael and Chantell Sackett appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.[1]
- August 16, 2021: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the EPA, holding that the agency's jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act extends to the Sackett's property.[2]
Background
Fourteen-year legal battle between Sackett family and EPA
Chantell and Michael Sackett purchased a residential lot near a lake in Idaho and used gravel and sand to fill the lot and get it ready for home construction. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered the Sacketts to remove the fill and return the lot to its natural state, arguing that the lot contained wetlands subject to EPA regulation under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Sacketts sued in 2008 and argued that the EPA lacked jurisdiction over their property. The dispute worked its way through the federal courts for the fourteen years following that initial lawsuit.[2]
Ninth Circuit rules in favor of EPA
In 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the EPA, holding that the CWA covers the Sackett's property.[2] The Sacketts appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking for clarification about which wetlands are covered by the CWA.[1]
Questions presented
The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:
Question presented:
|
Oral argument
Audio
Audio of oral argument:[5]
Transcript
Transcript of oral argument:[6]
Outcome
The court ruled unanimously that the EPA’s wetlands regulatory jurisdiction is limited to wetlands with a continuous surface connection to waters of the United States. It reversed and remanded the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling.
Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Elena Kagan delivered an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Opinion
Opinion of the court
Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court, which argued that the definition of the term waters of the United States does not cover all wetlands. Pursuant to the decision in Rapanos v. United States, the term waters extends to wetlands that have “a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States.'” Alito argued as a result that the EPA does not have jurisdiction over the wetlands in question in the case:[7]
| “ | In Rapanos, the plurality spelled out clearly when adjacent wetlands are part of covered waters. It explained that ‘waters’ may fairly be read to include only those wetlands that are ‘as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States,’ such that it is ‘difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.’ 547 U. S., at 742, 755 (emphasis deleted). That occurs when wetlands have ‘a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right, so that there is no clear demarcation between ‘waters’ and wetlands.’ Id., at 742; cf. 33 U. S. C. §2802(5) (defining ‘coastal waters’ to include wetlands ‘having unimpaired connection with the open sea up to the head of tidal influence’). We agree with this formulation of when wetlands are part of ‘the waters of the United States.’ We also acknowledge that temporary interruptions in surface connection may sometimes occur because of phenomena like low tides or dry spells.
In sum, we hold that the CWA extends to only those wetlands that are ‘as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States.’ Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 755 (plurality opinion) (emphasis deleted). This requires the party asserting jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands to establish ‘first, that the adjacent [body of water constitutes] . . . ‘water[s] of the United States,’ (i.e., a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters); and second, that the wetland has a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.’ Id., at 742.[7][4] |
” |
Concurring opinion
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. He expanded on the court’s opinion to argue that the definition of the term navigable and the Commerce Clause also influence the scope of the EPA’s jurisdiction over wetlands. Thomas argued that the wetlands in question do not meet the definition of navigable or the scope of interstate channels of commerce:[7]
| “ | Thankfully, applying well-established navigability rules makes this a straightforward case. The ‘wetlands’ on the Sacketts’ property are not ‘waters of the United States’ for several independently sufficient reasons. First, for the reasons set out by the Court, the Sacketts’ wetlands are not ‘waters’ because they lack a continuous surface connection with a traditional navigable water. See ante, at 27. Second, the nonnavigable so-called ‘tributary’ (really, a roadside ditch) across the street from the Sacketts’ property is not a water of the United States because it is not, has never been, and cannot reasonably be made a highway of interstate or foreign commerce. See SWANCC, 531 U. S., at 172. Third, the agencies have not attempted to establish that Priest Lake is a navigable water under the expanded Daniel Ball test. The lake is purely intrastate, and the agencies have not shown that it is a highway of interstate or foreign commerce. Instead, the agencies rely primarily upon interstate tourism and the lake’s attenuated connection to navigable waters. See U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, G. Rayner, Priest Lake Jurisdictional Determination (Feb. 27, 2007); see also Brief for National Association of Home Builders of the United States as Amicus Curiae 21–24. But, this is likely insufficient under the traditional navigability tests to which the CWA pegs jurisdiction. See supra, at 10–13; accord, Tr. of Oral Arg. 119 (EPA counsel conceding that Congress ‘hasn’t used its full Commerce Clause authority’ in the CWA). Finally, even assuming that a navigable water is involved, the agencies have not established that the Sacketts’ actions would obstruct or otherwise impede navigable capacity or the suitability of the water for interstate commerce. See Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U. S., at 709.[7][4] | ” |
Concurring in judgment
Justice Elena Kagan delivered an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She argued that the majority opinion contradicts the scope of the Clean Water Act intended by Congress and that “the Court substitutes its own ideas about policymaking for Congress’s”:[7]
| “ | Vital to the Clean Water Act’s project is the protection of wetlands—both those contiguous to covered waters and others nearby. As this Court (again, formerly) recognized, wetlands ‘serve to filter and purify water draining into adjacent bodies of water, and to slow the flow of surface runoff into lakes, rivers, and streams.’ United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 134 (1985) (citation omitted). Wetlands thus ‘function as integral parts of the aquatic environment’—protecting neighboring water if themselves healthy, imperiling neighboring water if instead degraded. Id., at 135. At the same time, wetlands play a crucial part in flood control (if anything, more needed now than when the statute was enacted). And wetlands perform those functions, as Justice Kavanaugh explains, not only when they are touching a covered water but also when they are separated from it by a natural or artificial barrier—say, a berm or dune or dike or levee. See post, at 12–13 (giving examples). Those barriers, as he says, ‘do not block all water flow,’ and in fact are usually evidence of a significant connection between the wetland and the water. Ibid. Small wonder, then, that the Act—as written, rather than as read today—covers wetlands with that kind of connection. Congress chose just the word needed to meet the Act’s objective. A wetland is protected when it is ‘adjacent’ to a covered water—not merely when it is ‘adjoining’ or ‘contiguous’ or ‘touching,’ or (in the majority’s favorite made-up locution) has a ‘continuous surface connection.’ See, e.g., ante, at 27.[7][4] | ” |
Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. He argued in favor of reversing the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, however, he argued against the majority decision to define covered wetlands under the Clean Water Act as those with what the majority referred to as continuous surface connection to waters of the United States:[7]
| “ | I agree with the Court’s reversal of the Ninth Circuit. In particular, I agree with the Court’s decision not to adopt the ‘significant nexus’ test for determining whether a wetland is covered under the Act. And I agree with the Court’s bottom-line judgment that the wetlands on the Sacketts’ property are not covered by the Act and are therefore not subject to permitting requirements.
I write separately because I respectfully disagree with the Court’s new test for assessing when wetlands are covered by the Clean Water Act. The Court concludes that wetlands are covered by the Act only when the wetlands have a ‘continuous surface connection’ to waters of the United States—that is, when the wetlands are ‘adjoining’ covered waters. Ante, at 20, 22 (internal quotation marks omitted). In my view, the Court’s ‘continuous surface connection’ test departs from the statutory text, from 45 years of consistent agency practice, and from this Court’s precedents. The Court’s test narrows the Clean Water Act’s coverage of ‘adjacent’ wetlands to mean only ‘adjoining’ wetlands. But ‘adjacent’ and ‘adjoining’ have distinct meanings: Adjoining wetlands are contiguous to or bordering a covered water, whereas adjacent wetlands include both (i) those wetlands contiguous to or bordering a covered water, and (ii) wetlands separated from a covered water only by a man-made dike or barrier, natural river berm, beach dune, or the like. By narrowing the Act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands, the Court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States. Therefore, I respectfully concur only in the Court’s judgment.[7][4] |
” |
Text of the opinion
Read the full opinion here.
Commentary about the case
Pre-decision commentary
Gary Pasheilich with the law firm Roetzel & Andress wrote in a brief that the decision in Sackett v. EPA could impact the EPA’s 2023 Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, “While the full extent to which the decision will impact the new WOTUS rule remains uncertain, rejection of the significant nexus test would significantly undermine at least part of the rule. A variety of parties, including industry groups and certain states, have challenged the WOTUS rule immediately upon issuance, arguing that it creates an ambiguous legal standard … The next several months until the U.S. Supreme Court issues its ruling will continue to see heightened political attention and legal challenge.”[8]
Peter Alpert with the law firm Ropes & Gray argued that SCOTUS was unlikely to restrict the EPA’s authority, “It seems unlikely that the court would strip the EPA of any authority to regulate wetlands until Congress speaks. Although such a decision arguably would be aligned with the 'major question' doctrine that underpinned the court’s decision in last term’s West Virginia climate case, there was no hint at the hearing that the court is inclined to head again down such an inflammatory and environmentally risky path.”[9]
James Scherer and Matthew Viola with Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP wrote in a brief that several Republican lawmakers urged the Supreme Court to rule against the EPA: “Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and his counterparts from 25 other states, as well as the Ohio Farm Bureau and several Republican Congress members from Ohio, have signed onto legal briefs urging the Supreme Court to reject the EPA’s arguments and curb authority that detractors see as a vast scheme of federal regulation, only tenuously connected to the legitimate protection of WOTUS.”[10]
Post-decision commentary
Ian Millhiser, a senior correspondent at Vox, wrote in an article arguing against the Supreme Court ruling, “The fundamental challenge facing any water regulator is that water systems are interconnected … This explains why Congress not only extended the Clean Water Act to significant waterways, it also extended it to wetlands that are ‘adjacent’ to those waterways. It makes no sense to prohibit pollution dumped directly into the mighty Mississippi, but to permit pollution to be dumped on nearby wetlands that feed directly into the river.”[11]
Representative Dan Meuser (R-Pa.) released a statement in response to the decision stating, “Both the Obama and Biden Administrations sought to weaponize the Clean Water Act, particularly through their WOTUS rules, to implement burdensome regulations on landowners stretching far beyond their legal authority … In particular, the Biden Administration’s proposed WOTUS rule would lead to every ditch, stream, and puddle on farmers’ and other private citizens’ properties being regulated under the Clean Water Act, even miles away from the nearest navigable water. I continue to urge the Biden administration to withdraw their disastrous WOTUS rule, especially following the Supreme Court’s decision.”[12]
Michael Byrd, the executive director of the Prescott Creeks Preservation Association, argued that the decision introduced ambiguity surrounding the Clean Water Act. He stated, according to Cronkite News, that, “We had a Clean Water Act that appeared to be working pretty well for the last 51 years. And that has now been materially changed … It kind of puts into question what the protections are going to be for most of the state’s waterways. And I think that’s not a good thing.”[13]
Representative Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) tweeted following the ruling, arguing that the Supreme Court decision corrects the EPA's regulatory overreach, “This is a significant win as it counters the Biden Administration's aggressive overregulation. SCOTUS rightfully preserved the private property rights and freedoms of millions of Americans with its decision.”[14]
Impact
The decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency restricted the regulatory authority of the EPA by altering the agency's jurisdiction over wetlands. The court ruled that wetlands covered by the Clean Water Act must have continuous surface connection to waters of the United States.[11][15]
Aftermath
The SCOTUS decision could impact the EPA and Engineers Corps’ 2023 rule titled “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States.'” The rule, which was effective March 20, 2023, redefined “waters of the United States” under the CWA in an effort to ensure “critical protections for the nation’s vital water resources, which support public health, environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic growth across the United States,” according to the rule.[16]
Congress passed a Congressional Review Act resolution in response to the rule on March 29, 2023. The resolution was vetoed by President Joe Biden (D) on April 6, 2023.[17]
The 2023 rule itself was not presented to the court, however, following the SCOTUS decision in Sackett v. EPA, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced a final rule, effective September 8, 2023, to revise the definition of waters of the United States to conform the definition to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.[18][19]
October term 2022-2023
The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[20]
See also
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 U.S. Supreme Court, "Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, Petition for a writ of certiorari," September 22, 2021
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 CASETEXT, "Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency," August 16, 2021
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, Question Presented," January 24, 2022
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio, Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency," argued October 3, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued October 3, 2022
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 Justia, "Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. _ (2023)," accessed May 26, 2023
- ↑ JDSUPRA, "'Waters of the United States' Rule To Be Tested by Pending U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Sackett v. EPA," March 20, 2023
- ↑ Bloomberg Law, "Sackett Case Unlikely to Trim EPA Wetland Authority," October 12, 2022
- ↑ JDSUPRA, "U.S. Supreme Court Hears Challenge to EPA's Authority to Regulate Wetland," March 27, 2023
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Vox, "A new Supreme Court opinion is terrible news if you care about clean water," May 25, 2023
- ↑ Dan Meuser, "Mesuer Praises Supreme Court's WOTUS Decision," May 25, 2023
- ↑ Cronkite News Arizona PBS, "Ranchers hail, environmentalists fear Supreme Court clean water ruling," May 29, 2023
- ↑ Twitter, "Rep Andy Briggs," May 26, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Supreme Court curtails Clean Water Act," May 25, 2023
- ↑ Federal Register, "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States'," January 18, 2023
- ↑ Congress.gov, "H.J.Res.27 - Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to 'Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States'," accessed May 31, 2023
- ↑ United States Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA and the Army Developing Rule to Amend 2023 Rule," accessed July 27, 2023
- ↑ Federal Register, "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States'; Conforming," September 8, 2023
- ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
| |||||||||||