Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. ___ (2023)
Sackett began backfilling an Idaho lot with dirt to build a home. The Environmental Protection Agency informed Sackett that the property contained wetlands and that the backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging pollutants into “the waters of the United States,” 33 U.S.C. 1362(7). The EPA ordered Sackett to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day. The EPA classified the Sacket wetlands as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the EPA.
The Supreme Court reversed. CWA jurisdiction over an adjacent wetland requires that the adjacent body of water constitutes waters of the United States (a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters) and a continuous surface connection between the wetland and that water, making it difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.”
The Court reviewed the history of judicial interpretation of “the waters of the United States” and enforcement by federal agencies, which argued that the significant-nexus test was sufficient to establish jurisdiction over “adjacent” wetlands. Under that test, nearly all waters and wetlands are potentially susceptible to regulation, “putting a staggering array of landowners at risk of criminal prosecution for such mundane activities as moving dirt.” The CWA’s use of “waters” encompasses only relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies, ordinarily called streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes. Wetlands qualify as “waters of the United States” only if “indistinguishable from waters of the United States,” having a continuous surface connection to bodies that are waters of the United States in their own right, with no clear demarcation between waters and wetlands.
Supreme Court limits Clean Water Act jurisdiction over "adjacent wetlands" to those having a continuous surface connection to bodies that are "waters of the United States" in their own right, with no clear demarcation between the "waters" and wetlands.
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
SACKETT et ux. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 21–454. Argued October 3, 2022—Decided May 25, 2023
Petitioners Michael and Chantell Sackett purchased property near Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare for building a home. The Environmental Protection Agency informed the Sacketts that their property contained wetlands and that their backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging pollutants into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7). The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day. The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not “waters of the United States.” The District Court entered summary judgment for the EPA. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the CWA covers wetlands with an ecologically significant nexus to traditional navigable waters and that the Sacketts’ wetlands satisfy that standard.
Held: The CWA’s use of “waters” in §1362(7) refers only to “geographic[al] features that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes’ ” and to adjacent wetlands that are “indistinguishable” from those bodies of water due to a continuous surface connection. Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 755, 742, 739 (plurality opinion). To assert jurisdiction over an adjacent wetland under the CWA, a party must 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.” Ibid. Pp. 6–28.
(a) The uncertain meaning of “the waters of the United States” has been a persistent problem, sparking decades of agency action and litigation. Resolving the CWA’s applicability to wetlands requires a review of the history surrounding the interpretation of that phrase. Pp. 6–14.
(1) During the period relevant to this case, the two federal agencies charged with enforcement of the CWA—the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers—similarly defined “the waters of the United States” broadly to encompass “[a]ll . . . waters” that “could affect interstate or foreign commerce.” 40 CFR §230.3(s)(3). The agencies likewise gave an expansive interpretation of wetlands adjacent to those waters, defining “adjacent” to mean “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring.” §203.3(b). In United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, the Court confronted the Corps’ assertion of authority under the CWA over wetlands that “actually abut[ted] on a navigable waterway.” Id., at 135. Although concerned that the wetlands fell outside “traditional notions of ‘waters,’ ” the Court deferred to the Corps, reasoning that “the transition from water to solid ground is not necessarily or even typically an abrupt one.” Id., 132–133. Following Riverside Bayview, the agencies issued the “migratory bird rule,” extending CWA jurisdiction to any waters or wetlands that “are or would be used as [a] habitat” by migratory birds or endangered species. 53 Fed. Reg. 20765. The Court rejected the rule after the Corps sought to apply it to several isolated ponds located wholly within the State of Illinois, holding that the CWA does not “exten[d] to ponds that are not adjacent to open water.” Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159, 168 (SWANCC) (emphasis deleted). The agencies responded by instructing their field agents to determine the scope of the CWA’s jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. Within a few years, the agencies had “interpreted their jurisdiction over ‘the waters of the United States’ to cover 270-to-300 million acres” of wetlands and “virtually any parcel of land containing a channel or conduit . . . through which rainwater or drainage may occasionally or intermittently flow.” Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 722 (plurality opinion).
Against that backdrop, the Court in Rapanos vacated a lower court decision that had held that the CWA covered wetlands near ditches and drains that emptied into navigable waters several miles away. As to the rationale for vacating, however, no position in Rapanos commanded a majority of the Court. Four Justices concluded that the CWA’s coverage was limited to certain relatively permanent bodies of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters and to wetlands that are “as a practical matter indistinguishable” from those waters. Id., at 755 (emphasis deleted). Justice Kennedy, concurring only in the judgment, wrote that CWA jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands requires a “significant nexus” between the wetland and its adjacent navigable waters, which exists when “the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of those waters. Id., at 779–780. Following Rapanos, field agents brought nearly all waters and wetlands under the risk of CWA jurisdiction by engaging in fact-intensive “significant-nexus” determinations that turned on a lengthy list of hydrological and ecological factors.
Under the agencies’ current rule, traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas, as well as their tributaries and adjacent wetlands, are waters of the United States. See 88 Fed. Reg. 3143. So too are any “[i]ntrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands” that either have a continuous surface connection to categorically included waters or have a significant nexus to interstate or traditional navigable waters. Id., at 3006, 3143. Finding a significant nexus continues to require consideration of a list of open-ended factors. Ibid. Finally, the current rule returns to the agencies’ longstanding definition of “adjacent.” Ibid. Pp. 6–12.
(2) Landowners who even negligently discharge pollutants into navigable waters without a permit potentially face severe criminal and civil penalties under the Act. As things currently stand, the agencies maintain that the significant-nexus test is sufficient to establish jurisdiction over “adjacent” wetlands. By the EPA’s own admission, nearly all waters and wetlands are potentially susceptible to regulation under this test, putting a staggering array of landowners at risk of criminal prosecution for such mundane activities as moving dirt. Pp. 12–14.
(b) Next, the Court considers the extent of the CWA’s geographical reach. Pp. 14–22.
(1) To make sense of Congress’s choice to define “navigable waters” as “the waters of the United States,” the Court concludes that the CWA’s use of “waters” encompasses “only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic[al] features’ that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.’ ” Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 739 (plurality opinion). This reading follows from the CWA’s deliberate use of the plural “waters,” which refers to those bodies of water listed above, and also helps to align the meaning of “the waters of the United States” with the defined term “navigable waters.” More broadly, this reading accords with how Congress has employed the term “waters” elsewhere in the CWA—see, e.g., 33 U. S. C. §§1267(i)(2)(D), 1268(a)(3)(I)—and in other laws—see, e.g., 16 U. S. C. §§745, 4701(a)(7). This Court has understood CWA’s use of “waters” in the same way. See, e.g., Riverside Bayview, 474 U. S., at 133; SWANCC, 531 U. S., at 168–169, 172.
The EPA’s insistence that “water” is “naturally read to encompass wetlands” because the “presence of water is ‘universally regarded as the most basic feature of wetlands’ ” proves too much. Brief for Respondents 19. It is also tough to square with SWANCC’s exclusion of isolated ponds or Riverside Bayview’s extensive focus on the adjacency of wetlands to covered waters. Finally, it is difficult to see how the States’ “responsibilities and rights” in regulating water resources would remain “primary” if the EPA had such broad jurisdiction. §1251(b). Pp. 14–18.
(2) Statutory context shows that some wetlands nevertheless qualify as “waters of the United States.” Specifically, §1344(g)(1), which authorizes States to conduct certain permitting programs, specifies that discharges may be permitted into any waters of the United States, except for traditional navigable waters, “including wetlands adjacent thereto,” suggesting that at least some wetlands must qualify as “waters of the United States.” But §1344(g)(1) cannot define what wetlands the CWA regulates because it is not the operative provision that defines the Act’s reach. Instead, the reference to adjacent wetlands in §1344(g)(1) must be harmonized with “the waters of the United States,” which is the operative term that defines the CWA’s reach. Because the “adjacent” wetlands in §1344(g)(1) are “includ[ed]” within “waters of the United States,” these wetlands must qualify as “waters of the United States” in their own right, i.e., be indistinguishably part of a body of water that itself constitutes “waters” under the CWA. To hold otherwise would require implausibly concluding that Congress tucked an important expansion to the reach of the CWA into convoluted language in a relatively obscure provision concerning state permitting programs. Understanding the CWA to apply to wetlands that are distinguishable from otherwise covered “waters of the United States” would substantially broaden §1362(7) to define “navigable waters” as “waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands.” But §1344(g)(1)’s use of the term “including” makes clear that it does not purport to do any such thing. It merely reflects Congress’s assumption that certain “adjacent” wetlands are part of the “waters of the United States.”
To determine when a wetland is part of adjacent “waters of the United States,” the Court agrees with the Rapanos plurality that the use of “waters” in §1362(7) may be fairly read to include only wetlands that are “indistinguishable from waters of the United States.” This occurs only 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.” 547 U. S., at 742.
In sum, the CWA extends to only wetlands that are “as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States.” This requires the party asserting jurisdiction 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.” Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 755, 742. Pp. 18–22.
(c) The EPA asks the Court to defer to its most recent rule providing that “adjacent wetlands are covered by the [CWA] if they ‘possess a significant nexus to’ traditional navigable waters” and that wetlands are “adjacent” when they are “neighboring” to covered waters. Brief for Respondents 32, 20. For multiple reasons, the EPA’s position lacks merit. Pp. 22–27.
(1) The EPA’s interpretation is inconsistent with the CWA’s text and structure and clashes with “background principles of construction” that apply to the interpretation of the relevant provisions. Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844, 857. First, “exceedingly clear language” is required if Congress wishes to alter the federal/state balance or the Government’s power over private property. United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Assn., 590 U. S. ___, ___. The Court has thus required a clear statement from Congress when determining the scope of “the waters of the United States.” Second, the EPA’s interpretation gives rise to serious vagueness concerns in light of the CWA’s criminal penalties, thus implicating the due process requirement that penal statutes be defined “ ‘with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited.’ ” McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550, 576. Where penal statutes could sweep broadly enough to render criminal a host of what might otherwise be considered ordinary activities, the Court has been wary about going beyond what “Congress certainly intended the statute to cover.” Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 404. Under these two principles, the judicial task when interpreting “the waters of the United States” is to ascertain whether clear congressional authorization exists for the EPA’s claimed power. Pp. 22–25.
(2) The EPA claims that Congress ratified the EPA’s regulatory definition of “adjacent” when it amended the CWA to include the reference to “adjacent” wetlands in §1344(g)(1). This argument fails for at least three reasons. First, the text of §§1362(7) and 1344(g) shows that “adjacent” cannot include wetlands that are merely nearby covered waters. Second, EPA’s argument cannot be reconciled with this Court’s repeated recognition that §1344(g)(1) “ ‘does not conclusively determine the construction to be placed on . . . the relevant definition of “navigable waters.” ’ ” SWANCC, 531 U. S., at 171. Third, the EPA falls short of establishing the sort of “overwhelming evidence of acquiescence” necessary to support its argument in the face of Congress’s failure to amend §1362(7). Finally, the EPA’s various policy arguments about the ecological consequences of a narrower definition of “adjacent” are rejected. Pp. 25–27.
8 F. 4th 1075, reversed and remanded.
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.
Letter in response to Respondents' letter dated December 30, 2022, re: joint final rule interpreting "the waters of the United States" of Michael Sackett, et al. submitted. |
Letter of petitioners in response to the December 30, 2022 letter of the Solicitor General filed. (Distributed) |
Letter from respondents notifying the Court of the joint final rule agreed on between the EPA and the Dept. of the Army regarding "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act. (Distributed) |
Letter of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. submitted. |
Argued. For petitioners: Damien M. Schiff, Sacramento, Cal. For respondents: Brian H. Fletcher, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. |
CIRCULATED |
Brief of Michael Sackett, et al. submitted. |
Reply of petitioners Michael Sackett, et al. filed. |
The record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer. |
Record requested from the 9th Circuit. |
Amicus brief of Water Resource Management Organizations submitted. |
Amicus brief of Idaho Conservation League submitted. |
Amicus brief of Former EPA Administrators William K. Reilly and Carol M. Browner submitted. |
Amicus brief of Public Citizen submitted. |
Amicus brief of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia submitted. |
Amicus brief of American Sustainable Business Network, National Latino Farmers and Ranchers Trade Association, Ecological Restoration Business Association, and Craft Brewers submitted. |
Amicus brief of National Association of Clean Water Agencies submitted. |
Amicus brief of Colorado submitted. |
Amicus brief of Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin and 17 Federally Recognized Indian Tribes submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed. |
Amicus brief of Environmental and Community Organizations submitted. |
Amicus brief of 167 U.S. Members of Congress in Support of Respondents submitted. |
Amicus brief of Constitutional Accountability Center submitted. |
Amicus brief of Outdoor Recreation and Conservation Organizations submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Clean Water Agencies filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Idaho Conservation League filed. |
Brief amici curiae of 167 U.S. Members of Congress filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Outdoor Recreation and Conservation Organizations filed. |
Brief amici curiae of New York, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Colorado filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Water Resource Management Organizations filed. |
Brief amici curiae of American Sustainable Business Network, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Former EPA Administrators William K. Reilly, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Environmental and Community Organizations filed. |
Amicus brief of Scientific Societies submitted. |
Amicus brief of Waterkeeper Alliance, San Francisco Baykeeper, Bayou City Waterkeeper, and 47 Other Waterkeeper Organizations submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Scientific Societies filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Waterkeeper Alliance, et al. filed. |
ARGUMENT SET FOR Monday, October, 3, 2022. |
Brief of respondents U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. filed. |
Brief of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of Farm Bureaus of Arkansas, et al. filed. |
Amicus brief of Farm Bureaus of Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia submitted. |
Amicus brief of National Cattlemen's Beef Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of Cato Institute submitted. |
Amicus brief of Property and Environment Research Center submitted. |
Amicus brief of Freeport-McMoRan Inc. submitted. |
Amicus brief of American Exploration and Mining Association et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Duarte Nursery, Inc. submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Associated Industries of Florida and Florida H2O Coalition filed. |
Amicus brief of Associated Industries of Florida and Florida H2O Coalition submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Home Builders filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Wyoming Stock Growers Association, et al. filed. |
Amicus brief of The National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, United States Conference of Mayors, International City/County Management Association, International Municipal Lawyers Association, et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Farm Bureaus of Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia submitted. |
Amicus brief of Savannah Economic Development Authority, Greenland Developers, LLC, and Resource & Land Consultants LLC submitted. |
Amicus brief of Association of American Railroads submitted. |
Amicus brief of State of West Virginia submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of Savannah Economic Development Authority, Greenland Developers, LLC, and Resource & Land Consultants LLC filed. |
Amicus brief of National Association of Home Builders submitted. |
Amicus brief of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America submitted. |
Amicus brief of Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence submitted. |
Amicus brief of American Petroleum Institute, Association of Oil Pipe Lines, and American Gas Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of Western Urban Water Coalition submitted. |
Amicus brief of Wyoming Stock Growers Association, Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, and Progressive Pathways submitted. |
Amicus brief of State of Alaska submitted. |
Amicus brief of Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, Rep. Sam Graves, and a Coalition of 199 Members of Congress submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of The National Association of Counties, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Property and Environment Research Center filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of National Cattlemen's Beef Association filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Freeport-McMoRan Inc. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Association of American Railroads filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Savannah Economic Development Authority, et al. filed. |
Amicus brief of Farm Bureaus of Arkansas, et al. not accepted for filing. (Corrected version to be submitted) (April 20, 2022) |
Brief amici curiae of Farm Bureaus of Arkansas, et al. filed (4/21/22.) |
Amicus brief of Farm Bureaus of Arkansas, et al. not accepted for filing. (Corrected version to be submitted-- April 20, 2022.) |
Brief amicus curiae of Western Urban Water Coalition in support of neither party filed. |
Brief amici curiae of American Exploration and Mining Association, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of State of Alaska filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of American Exploration and Mining Association et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Duarte Nursery, Inc. filed. |
Amicus brief of Farm Bureaus of Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia not accepted for filing. (Corrected version to be submitted) (April 20, 2022) |
Brief amicus curiae of Western Urban Water Coalition filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of State of West Virginia and 25 Other States filed. |
Brief amici curiae of American Petroleum Institute, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Fourteen National Agricultural Organizations filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Forestry Organizations filed. |
Amicus brief of Forestry Organizations submitted. |
Amicus brief of Fourteen National Agricultural Organizations submitted. |
Amicus brief of Atlantic Legal Foundation, Conservatives for Property Rights, Committee for Justice submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Liberty Justice Center filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Congressional Western Caucus Members filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Atlantic Legal Foundation, Conservatives for Property Rights, Committee for Justice filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Atlantic Legal Foundation, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed. |
Amicus brief of Western Caucus Members submitted. |
Amicus brief of Liberty Justice Center submitted. |
Amicus brief of Americans for Prosperity Foundation submitted. |
Amicus brief of Southeastern Legal Foundation submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, et al. filed. |
Amicus brief of National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association and The American Road and Transportation Builders Association submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation filed. |
Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed) |
Brief of petitioners Michael Sackett, et al. filed. |
Joint Appendix submitted. |
Brief of Michael Sackett, et al. submitted. |
Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed) |
Brief of petitioners Michael Sackett, et al. filed. |
Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed) |
Brief of petitioners Michael Sackett, et al. filed. |
Blanket Consent filed by Respondents, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. |
Joint motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including April 11, 2022. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including June 10, 2022. |
Motion of Michael Sackett, et al. for an extension of time submitted. |
Joint motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed. |
Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the Ninth Circuit set forth the proper test for determining whether wetlands are "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. §1362(7). |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/21/2022. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/14/2022. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022. |
Reply of petitioners Michael Sackett, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Waiver of the 14-day waiting period under Rule 15.5 filed. |
Brief of respondents U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. in opposition filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. |
Brief amici curiae of State of West Virginia, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Home Builders filed. |
Brief amici curiae of the Cato Institute, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation filed. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 24, 2021. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 25, 2021 to November 24, 2021, submitted to The Clerk. |
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Michael Sackett, et al. |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 25, 2021) |