Sackett v. EPA (2023)
Sackett v. EPA (598 U.S. ___, 2023) is a landmark Supreme Court decision that sharply limited the scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA) by redefining “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The Court held that only wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to relatively permanent bodies of water are protected, rejecting the broader “significant nexus” test and removing federal protection from millions of acres of wetlands[1][3][4][5][6][8].
Key Events Timeline
- 2004: Michael and Chantell Sackett purchase a lot near Priest Lake, Idaho, and begin filling it with dirt to build a home[1][4].
- 2007: EPA orders the Sacketts to restore the site, classifying their wetlands as WOTUS due to proximity to a ditch, creek, and Priest Lake[1][3][4].
- 2008-2012: Sacketts sue, arguing their property is not WOTUS. Lower courts side with EPA, using the “significant nexus” test[1][3][4].
- 2022: Supreme Court grants certiorari to resolve the scope of CWA jurisdiction over wetlands[1][3][4][8].
- May 25, 2023: Supreme Court (Alito, J., 5-4 majority) holds that only wetlands with a continuous surface connection to “relatively permanent” waters are covered by the CWA, overturning the “significant nexus” standard[1][3][4][5][8].
- 2023-2025: EPA and Army Corps revise WOTUS rules to comply with Sackett, removing federal protection from up to half of U.S. wetlands[6][7].
Supreme Court Vote
Wetlands and Federal Jurisdiction: Quantitative Context
| Year | Estimated U.S. Wetlands (million acres) | % Wetlands Under Federal CWA Jurisdiction | Major Regulatory Event |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 107 | ~55% | Rapanos decision |
| 2015 | 106 | ~65% | Obama "Clean Water Rule" |
| 2020 | 106 | ~45% | Trump "Navigable Waters Protection Rule" |
| 2023 | 105 | ~30–50% | Sackett decision |
| 2025 (proj.) | 105 | <30% | Post-Sackett implementation |
Result: The Sackett decision removed federal Clean Water Act protection from as many as half of U.S. wetlands, leaving millions of acres subject only to state or local regulation[5][6].
Legal Logic and Precedent
Key Holdings
- Statutory Interpretation: “Waters of the United States” under the CWA covers only relatively permanent bodies of water and wetlands with a continuous surface connection to those waters[1][3][4][5][8].
- Significant Nexus Rejected: The Court rejected the “significant nexus” test, holding it was inconsistent with the CWA’s text and structure[1][3][4][5].
- Federalism & Due Process: The majority emphasized state primacy over land and water use, and due process concerns with vague federal standards[3][4][5].
- Impact: Agencies must now show a direct, surface connection between wetlands and navigable waters to assert jurisdiction[1][3][4][5][8].
Implications for Wetland and Water Regulation
| Area | Before Sackett | After Sackett |
|---|---|---|
| Wetlands Protection | Many wetlands covered by CWA if ecologically connected | Only wetlands with direct, continuous surface connection covered |
| Regulatory Certainty | Case-by-case, significant nexus analysis | Clearer, but narrower, federal jurisdiction |
| Land Development | Many projects required federal permits | Fewer federal permits required; more state/local control |
| Environmental Impact | Higher wetland protection, less habitat loss | Potential for increased wetland loss and water pollution |
Why Sackett v. EPA Matters
Sackett v. EPA fundamentally narrowed federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, ending protection for millions of acres of wetlands and shifting primary regulatory authority to states[1][3][5][6][8]. The decision has major implications for water quality, habitat protection, and the future of U.S. environmental law.
Key citation: Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. ___ (2023); Clean Water Act §404.