Supreme Court limits EPA’s authority over water regulation.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Idaho Couple in EPA Wetland Dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt another blow to the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory power, ruling in favor of an Idaho couple who wanted to build a home on property that the EPA had deemed a protected wetland under the Clean Water Act of 1972.

The couple, Chantell and Mike Sackett, had purchased an undeveloped plot of land near Priest Lake in 2004 and began preparing to build a home in 2007. However, the EPA issued an administrative compliance order stating that the property contained wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act and that they needed a permit to build, which they had failed to obtain.

The Sacketts challenged the EPA’s determination, and the Supreme Court unanimously overturned a lower court’s ruling against them. The justices differed in their reasoning for doing so, but the ruling marks another instance of the court limiting the EPA’s regulatory authority.

The Scope of the EPA’s Regulatory Power

The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the Sacketts is the latest in a series of challenges to the EPA’s ability to regulate in the environmental arena under existing law. Last year, the court imposed limits on the EPA’s authority to issue sweeping regulations involving greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal- and gas-fired power plants under a different environmental law, the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Water Act bars discharging pollutants, including rocks and sand, into the “waters of the United States,” which regulators have said covers not just navigable waters but adjacent wetlands like swamps, marshes, and berms. However, courts and regulators have been grappling for decades over how much of a connection with a waterway a property must have in order to require a permit.

The Sacketts’ Case

The Sacketts’ case centered on whether their property near Priest Lake contained wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had relied on a test by retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, who said the law extended to areas that had a “significant nexus” to a waterway.

However, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for a five-member majority, embraced the “continuous surface connection” test for determining if adjacent wetlands are covered by the law. “The wetlands on the Sacketts’ property are distinguishable from any possibly covered waters,” Alito wrote.

Three justices – conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, and liberal Justice Elena Kagan – wrote separate concurring opinions.

The Future of EPA Regulation

The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the Sacketts comes as President Joe Biden’s administration has finalized a rule expanding the definition of waterways that are protected under the Clean Water Act, in a reversal from former President Donald Trump’s era. However, a federal judge in North Dakota has temporarily blocked implementation of the rule in 24 states in response to a lawsuit by mostly Republican-led states. The rule was also halted in Kentucky on May 10 by the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals while the state appeals a lower court’s ruling.

The future of EPA regulation remains uncertain, but the Supreme Court’s decision in the Sacketts’ case is a significant victory for property owners seeking to challenge the agency’s regulatory power.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases