Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (2023)

Last updated

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 3, 2022
Decided May 25, 2023
Full case nameMichael Sackett, et ux. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Docket no. 21-454
Citations598 U.S. 651 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Questions presented
Whether the United States Court of Appeals for 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).
Holding
Only wetlands and permanent bodies of water with a "continuous surface connection" to "traditional interstate navigable waters" are covered by the Clean Water Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett
ConcurrenceThomas, joined by Gorsuch
ConcurrenceKagan (in judgment), joined by Sotomayor, Jackson
ConcurrenceKavanaugh (in judgment), joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson
Laws applied
Clean Water Act

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), also known as Sackett II (to distinguish it from the 2012 case), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Clean Water Act.

Contents

Background

Before 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversight of pollution into the navigable waters of the United States. The Clean Water Act was brought into law in 1972 to amend the FWPCA to expand oversight beyond navigable waters, but all "waters of the United States". This phrase has since led to numerous debates about what water sources qualify, including many legal cases. By the late 1980s, the EPA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers developed a shared definition of what water sources qualify as "waters of the United States", incorporating the results of these cases. This definition of "waters" included "wetlands adjacent to waters" already protected by the EPA's and Corps' rule-making. [1]

The 2006 Supreme Court case Rapanos v. United States consolidated two cases that raised the question of whether wetlands that were hydrologically isolated or were not adjacent to other waters of the United States could be covered by the CWA or the EPA/Corps rule-making. The Court was split, 4–1–4. The plurality opinion was by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Scalia wrote that the distinction for protected wetlands should be established by a bright-line rule, covering only wetlands next to "relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water", or that were connected to other waters through surface waters. While Justice Anthony Kennedy joined in the Court's decision, he wrote a separate concurrence offering a looser interpretation, where protected wetlands were those that were part of a "significant nexus" with a navigable body of water. [1] The minority opinion, by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, accused the plurality of threatening the environment, failure to defer to the executive branch, and judicial activism. [2]

Lower courts used both the plurality and the nexus definition in subsequent cases involving wetlands. The EPA and the Corps adopted a new definition of protected wetlands that incorporated both of the Rapanos definitions into new rules. [1]

Case history

Chantell and Michael Sackett purchased a 0.63-acre vacant lot near Priest Lake, Idaho, in 2004. They began constructing their home there in 2007, after obtaining building permits from local authorities. Shortly after, United States Environmental Protection Agency officials informed the Sacketts that their lot might be subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act, as it contained "wetlands" that were "navigable waters". The EPA directed the Sacketts to halt construction until they received a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Sacketts received an administrative compliance order from the EPA in the fall of 2007. In 2008, they sued under the Administrative Procedure Act. The lower courts held EPA compliance orders were not subject to the APA, but the Supreme Court reversed in a 2012 decision, now known as Sackett I.

The Sacketts argued to the United States District Court for the District of Idaho on remand from the Supreme Court that their land was not subject to the CWA. In 2019, the district court applied Kennedy's test from Rapanos, and held the lot was regulated by the CWA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in August 2021, and rejected an attempt by the EPA to moot the litigation by withdrawing the compliance order.

The Sacketts filed a petition for a writ of certiorari . [3] The petitioners sought to determine whether the Rapanos decision should be revisited to instead adopt the plurality opinion's test to determine whether a wetland fell under the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction. [4] Amici curiae in support of the Sacketts were submitted by the Cato Institute, the US Chamber of Commerce, and Americans for Prosperity, while the Constitutional Accountability Center, Public Citizen, and major American scientific societies like the Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography, and Society of Wetland Scientists filed amici supporting the EPA. [5]

Supreme Court

Certiorari was granted in the case on January 24, 2022, and the court heard oral arguments on October 3, 2022. [6] The decision was handed down on May 25, 2023. The court voted unanimously to reverse the Ninth Circuit, but split 5–4 on the rationale.

The majority opinion, penned by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, concluded that the Rapanos plurality was correct, and that within the scope of the CWA, "the CWA's use of 'waters' encompasses 'only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water 'forming geographical features' that are described in ordinary parlance as 'streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes'." [7] The Court held that waters are not protected by the Clean Water Act unless they have a "continuous surface connection" to key lakes and rivers that affect interstate commerce. This means that waters that have an underground connection to those lakes/rivers and even the waters that are separated from the lakes/rivers by man-made barriers are no longer protected by the Clean Water Act. [8]

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, agreed with the majority opinion that the CWA did not apply to the Sacketts' property, but argued that the majority's new definition was incorrect and will have significant effects on regulated waters. [9] Kavanaugh wrote: "Because of the movement of water between adjacent wetlands and other waters, pollutants in wetlands often end up in adjacent rivers, lakes, and other waters. Natural barriers such as berms and dunes do not block all water flow and are in fact evidence of a regular connection between a water and a wetland. Similarly, artificial barriers such as dikes and levees typically do not block all water flow, and those artificial structures were often built to control the surface water connection between the wetland and the water. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that wetlands separated from covered waters by those kinds of berms or barriers, for example, still play an important role in protecting neighboring and downstream waters, including by filtering pollutants, storing water, and providing flood control. In short, those adjacent wetlands may affect downstream water quality and flood control in many of the same ways that adjoining wetlands can." [10]

Impact

Environmental advocacy group Earthjustice claims that over 59 million acres of wetlands are threatened by this ruling. [11]

The EPA and Army Corps introduced their proposed final rule on wetlands, reflecting the opinion of the Supreme Court, in August 2023. The rule reduces the amount of wetlands covered by federal law, and leaves to the states the degree of protection wetlands not covered should have. [12]

Related cases include Orchard Hill Bldg. Co. v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, [13] County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund , and United States v. Riverside Bayview . [14]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Water Act</span> 1972 U.S. federal law regulating water pollution

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution. Its objective is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters; recognizing the responsibilities of the states in addressing pollution and providing assistance to states to do so, including funding for publicly owned treatment works for the improvement of wastewater treatment; and maintaining the integrity of wetlands.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Navigability</span> Capacity of a body of water to allow the passage of vessels at a given time

A body of water, such as a river, canal or lake, is navigable if it is deep, wide and calm enough for a water vessel to pass safely. Navigability is also referred to in the broader context of a body of water having sufficient under keel clearance for a vessel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States environmental law</span> US environmental policy

United States environmental law concerns legal standards to protect human health and improve the natural environment of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Refuse Act</span> United States federal statute

The Refuse Act is a United States federal statute governing use of waterways. The Act, a section of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, prohibited "dumping of refuse" into navigable waters, except by permit.

Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts, and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court heard the case on February 21, 2006, and issued a decision on June 19, 2006.

S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 547 U.S. 370 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving licensing requirements under the Clean Water Act. The Court ruled unanimously that hydroelectric dams were subject to section 401 of the Act, which conditioned federal licensing for a licensed activity that could result in "any discharge" into navigable waters upon the receipt of a state certification that water protection laws would not be violated. The Court believed that since the Act did not define the word "discharge" it should be given its ordinary meaning, such that the simple flowing forth of water from a dam qualified.

The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) is an American nonprofit public interest law firm established for the purpose of defending and promoting individual freedom. PLF attorneys provide pro bono legal representation, file amicus curiae briefs, and hold administrative proceedings with the stated goal of supporting property rights, equality and opportunity, and the separation of powers. The organization is the first and oldest libertarian public interest law firm, having been founded in 1973.

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), was a decision by the US Supreme Court that interpreted a provision of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 of the Act requires permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into "navigable waters," which is defined by the Act as "waters of the United States." That provision was the basis for the federal wetlands-permitting program.

The migratory bird rule, adopted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asserted that the Clean Water Act (CWA) covers regulation of isolated waters "which are or would be used as habitat by... migratory birds that cross state lines." The rule was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2001.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">No net loss policy in the United States</span> Environmental policy goal for wetland conservation in the United States

"No Net loss" is the United States government's overall policy goal regarding wetlands preservation. The goal of the policy is to balance wetland loss due to economic development with wetlands reclamation, mitigation, and restorations efforts, so that the total acreage of wetlands in the country does not decrease, but remains constant or increases.

United States v. Riverside Bayview, 474 U.S. 121 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the scope of federal regulatory powers over waterways as pertaining to the definition of "waters of the United States" as written in the Clean Water Act of 1972. The Court ruled unanimously that the government does have the power to control intrastate wetlands as waters of the United States. This ruling was effectively revised in Rapanos v. United States (2006), in which the Court adopted a very narrow interpretation of "navigable waters."

Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interpretation of the Clean Water Act regulations with regard to cooling water intakes for power plants. Existing facilities are mandated to use the "Best Technology Available" to "minimize the adverse environmental impact." The issue was whether the agency may use a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in choosing the Best Available Technology or (BAT) to meet the National Performance Standards (NPS).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States regulation of point source water pollution</span>

Point source water pollution comes from discrete conveyances and alters the chemical, biological, and physical characteristics of water. In the United States, it is largely regulated by the Clean Water Act (CWA). Among other things, the Act requires dischargers to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to legally discharge pollutants into a water body. However, point source pollution remains an issue in some water bodies, due to some limitations of the Act. Consequently, other regulatory approaches have emerged, such as water quality trading and voluntary community-level efforts.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 566 U.S. 120 (2012), also known as Sackett I, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court ruled that because the Environmental Protection Agency's orders constitute "final agency action" under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal courts may hear appeals from its orders.

Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 568 U.S. 78 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Baykeeper challenged the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (District) for violating the terms of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as shown in water quality measurements from monitoring stations within the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers. The Supreme Court, by a unanimous 9-0 vote, reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the grounds that the flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not qualify as a "discharge of a pollutant" under the Clean Water Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014</span> United States legislation

The Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 is a bill that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) from implementing or enforcing certain proposed regulations regarding the use of the nation’s waters and wetlands.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Water Rule</span> 2015 EPA regulation

The Clean Water Rule is a 2015 regulation published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to clarify water resource management in the United States under a provision of the Clean Water Act of 1972. The regulation defined the scope of federal water protection in a more consistent manner, particularly over streams and wetlands which have a significant hydrological and ecological connection to traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and territorial seas. It is also referred to as the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, which defines all bodies of water that fall under U.S. federal jurisdiction. The rule was published in response to concerns about lack of clarity over the act's scope from legislators at multiple levels, industry members, researchers and other science professionals, activists, and citizens.

The Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act was passed by the New Jersey Legislature on July 1, 1987, to "preserve the purity and integrity of freshwater wetlands from random, unnecessary or undesirable alteration or disturbance." This statute extended state and federal protection of waterways. Prior to this act, only coastal and navigable waters were protected. The act extended protection to inland waterways and freshwater wetlands, which serve to protect water quality, provide flood protection, and provide habitat for wildlife.

County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving pollution discharges under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case asked whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants that originate from a non-point source can be traced to reach navigable waters through mechanisms such as groundwater transport. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that such non-point discharges require a permit when they are the "functional equivalent of a direct discharge", a new test defined by the ruling. The decision vacated the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case with instructions to apply the new standard to the lower courts with cooperation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency may refer to either of two United States Supreme Court cases:

References

  1. 1 2 3 "Evolution of the Meaning of "Waters of the United States" in the Clean Water Act"". Congressional Research Service. March 5, 2019. Retrieved May 28, 2023.
  2. ↑ Greenhouse, Linda (June 20, 2006). "Justices Divided on Protections Over Wetlands". The New York Times . Retrieved May 28, 2023.
  3. ↑ Howe, Amy (January 24, 2022). "Justices take up cases on power of district courts and regulation of wetlands". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved January 24, 2022.
  4. ↑ "Docket for 21-454". www.supremecourt.gov. Retrieved October 11, 2022.
  5. ↑ "Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved October 11, 2022.
  6. ↑ "Monthly Argument - Supreme Court of the United States". www.supremecourt.gov. Retrieved October 11, 2022.
  7. ↑ Greene, Duncan M.; Amberson, Sophia E.; Quihuis, Liberty; Knight, April; Gray-Sommerville, Savian (June 15, 2023). "U.S. Supreme Court Narrows WOTUS, Limiting Scope of Clean Water Act". National Law Review . Retrieved July 12, 2023.
  8. ↑ "Trump Rolled Back Decades Of Clean Water Protections. The Supreme Court Just Went Even Further". Huffpost. May 26, 2023. Retrieved May 27, 2023.
  9. ↑ "Supreme Court curtails Clean Water Act". May 25, 2023.
  10. ↑ "A new Supreme Court opinion is terrible news if you care about clean water". Vox. May 25, 2023. Retrieved May 27, 2023.
  11. ↑ "Supreme Court Catastrophically Undermines Clean Water Protections". Earthjustice. May 25, 2023. Retrieved May 27, 2023.
  12. ↑ Doubek, James (August 29, 2023). "The EPA removes federal protections for most of the country's wetlands". National Public Radio . Retrieved February 23, 2024.
  13. ↑ Just, Robin (June 24, 2022). "Sackett v. EPA and the Definition of Waters of the United States - Environmental & Energy Law Program". Harvard Law School. Retrieved May 25, 2023.
  14. ↑ "In Sackett Case, A Shallow Dive Into "Wetlands"". Hoover Institution. Retrieved May 25, 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.