1. Introduction

Sackett et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), is a landmark Supreme Court decision that significantly clarifies the scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case revolves around the definition of "waters of the United States" within the CWA, particularly concerning wetlands adjacent to navigable waters. Michael and Chantell Sackett challenged the EPA's determination that their property in Idaho contained protected wetlands, which they argued were not encompassed by the CWA. This case addresses long-standing ambiguities in environmental regulation and sets a precedent for future determinations of federal jurisdiction over land and water use.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's affirmation of the EPA's jurisdiction over the Sacketts' property. Justice Alito delivered the majority opinion, with Justices Kagan and Kavanaugh concurring in the judgment. The Court held that the CWA's term "waters of the United States" refers strictly to traditional water bodies described in ordinary language, such as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes, and to adjacent wetlands that are indistinguishable from these waters due to a continuous surface connection. To assert jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands, the EPA must demonstrate both that the water body is a "water of the United States" and that the wetland maintains an uninterrupted surface connection to this water, making it challenging to delineate the boundary between water and wetland.

The Court emphasized that the EPA's broader "significant nexus" test, which has been used to include nearly all wetlands under federal regulation, was inconsistent with the CWA's text and historical interpretation. The decision mandates a more restrictive approach, aligning federal jurisdiction with traditional navigability standards without overstepping into expansive regulatory authority.

3. Analysis

a. Precedents Cited

The Court extensively references several key cases that have shaped the interpretation of the CWA:

• Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006): This case introduced the "significant nexus" test, allowing for broader federal jurisdiction over wetlands.
• Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC), 531 U.S. 159 (2001): SWANCC rejected the Migratory Bird Rule, narrowing the scope of waters covered under the CWA.
• UNITED STATES v. RIVERSIDE BAYVIEW HOMES, INC., 474 U.S. 121 (1985): This case initially upheld the broad interpretation of the CWA, deferring to the Corps' jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands.
• McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016): Emphasizes the requirement for penal statutes to be clear and definite to uphold due process.

b. Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning centers on a textual and historical analysis of the CWA. It asserts that "waters of the United States" should be interpreted in their ordinary meaning, referring to substantial, permanent bodies of water used in interstate commerce. Adjacent wetlands are only covered when they are so closely connected to these waters that demarcating their boundaries is impractical.

The majority critiques the EPA's reliance on the "significant nexus" test, arguing that it overextends federal authority beyond what Congress intended. The Court emphasizes that such an expansive interpretation could criminalize ordinary land-use activities, conflicting with due process requirements for clear legislative guidance on penal matters.

Additionally, the Court underscores the importance of federalism, highlighting that broad CWA interpretations undermine states' primary authority over land and water use. The decision reinforces that federal jurisdiction should not infringe upon established state powers without clear congressional mandate.

c. Impact

This ruling significantly narrows the scope of the CWA, limiting federal oversight to wetlands with a direct and continuous connection to traditional navigable waters. Potential impacts include:

• Property Rights: Landowners will face fewer federal restrictions on land development near wetlands unless a strong, direct link to navigable waters is established.
• Environmental Regulation: The decision may reduce the number of wetlands under federal protection, potentially affecting ecological preservation and water quality management.
• Legal Landscape: Lower courts will now apply a stricter standard for CWA jurisdiction, potentially reversing previous decisions that favored broader EPA authority.
• State Authority: States may regain more control over water and land use regulation, reinforcing federalism principles.

Future cases will likely reference this decision to determine the extent of federal jurisdiction in environmental matters, signaling a shift towards more restrained federal regulatory power.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

a. "Waters of the United States"

This term refers to substantial bodies of water such as rivers, lakes, streams, and oceans that are used in interstate commerce. Under the CWA, these waters are protected from pollution. The Court clarified that only wetlands directly connected to these waters are also protected, not isolated or loosely connected wetlands.

b. "Significant Nexus"

The "significant nexus" test was a broader standard used by the EPA to include almost all wetlands under the CWA by assessing their overall impact on water quality and interstate commerce. The Supreme Court rejected this test in favor of a more stringent connection requirement.

c. Federalism

Federalism refers to the division of power between national and state governments. This case emphasizes that the CWA should not excessively infringe upon states' authority to regulate land and water within their borders without clear congressional intent.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v. EPA marks a pivotal moment in environmental law, redefining the boundaries of the CWA's jurisdiction. By limiting federal oversight to wetlands with direct, continuous connections to traditional navigable waters, the Court curtails the EPA's expansive regulatory reach established under the "significant nexus" test. This ruling reinforces the importance of textual and historical analysis in statutory interpretation and underscores the enduring principles of federalism. While it offers greater clarity and protection for property owners, it also poses challenges for environmental conservation efforts, necessitating a balanced approach in future regulatory and legal endeavors.

Moving forward, landowners and developers will benefit from clearer guidelines on federal jurisdiction, reducing uncertainties and potential legal conflicts. However, environmental groups may need to seek alternative frameworks or rely more heavily on state regulations to protect wetlands and maintain water quality. This decision underscores the dynamic interplay between federal authority and state sovereignty, shaping the landscape of environmental regulation for years to come.