Sackett v. EPA
The Facts
Michael and Chantell Sackett purchased land near Priest Lake, Idaho and began filling it with sand and gravel for a home. The EPA ordered them to stop, asserting the land was a federally regulated wetland under the CWA. After years of litigation, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of 'waters of the United States.'
The Application
Under the continuous surface connection standard, the Sacketts' Idaho land was not subject to federal jurisdiction because, despite its proximity to Priest Lake, it lacked a direct, unbroken surface connection to the navigable water. The EPA had asserted regulatory authority based on the land's wetland characteristics and hydrological proximity to the lake, but the Court's narrowed standard eliminated that jurisdictional hook only wetlands with surface-level connections qualify as regulated waters of the United States. By adopting the most restrictive approach from Rapanos, the majority rejected the EPA's broader reading that would have covered the Sacketts' parcel based on its adjacent status and ecological relationship to the navigable water, thereby removing millions of acres nationwide from federal jurisdiction.
The Conclusion
**Court ruled 5-4 for Sackett.** Alito wrote the majority. EPA and Army Corps lost jurisdiction over millions of acres of wetlands without direct surface connections to navigable waters. Kagan dissented for four justices.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Clean Water Act's definition of 'waters of the United States' does not encompass wetlands that are adjacent to but do not have a continuous surface connection with a navigable waterway. The Court significantly narrowed the EPA's and Army Corps' jurisdiction over wetlands.
Facts
Michael and Chantell Sackett purchased land near Priest Lake, Idaho and began filling it with sand and gravel for a home. The EPA ordered them to stop, asserting the land was a federally regulated wetland under the CWA. After years of litigation, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of 'waters of the United States.'
Issue
Whether wetlands that are near but lack a continuous surface connection to regulated navigable waters constitute 'waters of the United States' subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction.
Rule
Waters of the United States includes only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to a navigable water -- a direct, unbroken link at the surface level -- under the narrowest plurality position from Rapanos v. United States, which the majority adopted as the controlling standard.
Analysis
Under the continuous surface connection standard, the Sacketts' Idaho land was not subject to federal jurisdiction because, despite its proximity to Priest Lake, it lacked a direct, unbroken surface connection to the navigable water. The EPA had asserted regulatory authority based on the land's wetland characteristics and hydrological proximity to the lake, but the Court's narrowed standard eliminated that jurisdictional hook. Only wetlands with surface-level connections qualify as regulated "waters of the United States." By adopting the most restrictive approach from Rapanos, the majority rejected the EPA's broader reading that would have covered the Sacketts' parcel based on its adjacent status and ecological relationship to the navigable water, thereby removing millions of acres nationwide from federal jurisdiction.
Conclusion
**Court ruled 5-4 for Sackett.** Alito wrote the majority. EPA and Army Corps lost jurisdiction over millions of acres of wetlands without direct surface connections to navigable waters. Kagan dissented for four justices.
Notes
OT2022. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support