Sackett v. EPA
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Sackett v. EPA and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Sackett v. EPA.
Michael and Chantell Sackett challenged the EPA's classification of their property as 'waters of the United States' under the Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the CWA's jurisdiction extends only to wetlands that are indistinguishable from traditional bodies of water due to a continuous surface connection. The decision reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, narrowing the scope of the EPA's regulatory authority over wetlands.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Sackett v. EPA.
The Court held that the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction over wetlands is limited to those with a continuous surface connection to traditional navigable waters.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Sackett v. EPA. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Commerce Clause is relevant to Sackett v. EPA
The case involves the interpretation of the Clean Water Act, which is based on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The EPA classifed 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.
-
Why Void for Vagueness is relevant to Sackett v. EPA
The Court addressed concerns about the vagueness of the EPA's interpretation of 'waters of the United States' and its implications for due process.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)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 defned 'with suffcient defniteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited.'
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to Sackett v. EPA
The case examines the limits of agency authority under the Clean Water Act, specifically the EPA's jurisdiction over wetlands.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)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.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Sackett v. EPA that support the summary and concepts above.
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.'
The EPA's interpretation is inconsistent with the CWA's text and structure and clashes with 'background principles of construction.'
The Court has thus required a clear statement from Congress when determining the scope of 'the waters of the United States.'
