Case Summary
Michael and Chantell Sackett own an undeveloped lot near Priest Lake in Bonner County, Idaho. The north and south sides of the property are bounded by roads, and the west and east sides are bounded by other lots. The EPA determined that due to the fact that the Sacketts’ property is “adjacent” to Priest Lake, and Priest Lake is a “navigable water” under the Clean Water Act, that their lot is a “wetland” that falls under the EPA’s jurisdiction. The EPA concluded the Sacketts need a permit to fill the so-called wetland, and since the Sacketts had not obtained a permit when they began the process of building their home on the land, they were in violation of the Clean Water Act. Fighting an uphill battle since 2008, the Sacketts went back to the Supreme Court for the second time to determine whether the 9th Circuit applied the right standard to determine whether the EPA has authority over the Sacketts’ property.
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
Case History
In 1972, the Clean Water Act was enacted by Congress. This allows the EPA to regulate navigable waters of the United States.
In 2006, the United States Supreme Court decided the highly contentious Rapanos v. United States. Justice Scalia’s plurality opinion, with regard to wetlands, focused on the “continuous surface connection” between a wetland and jurisdictional water. Justice Kennedy’s concurrence opted for a “significant nexus” test, which is less definite. Officials and lower courts have struggled to determine which test is controlling.
In 2007, the EPA notified the Sacketts that their land was a wetland, and they had filled the wetland in violation of the Clean Water Act. To comply with the Clean Water Act, the EPA mandated that the Sacketts remove the fill material and fence the site for three growing seasons or face $32,500 in fines per day.
In 2008, the Sacketts responded to the EPA stating the EPA has no jurisdiction over their property because it is not a wetland. The District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed the Sacketts’ case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
In 2010, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that the case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In another case, the Ninth Circuit decided that land satisfying either Justice Scalia’s plurality “continuous surface connection” test or Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test qualifies as “Waters of the United States” for purposes of CWA jurisdiction.
In 2012, the Sacketts’ case went to the United States Supreme Court. The question presented to the Court was limited to whether the Sacketts could bring a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge a compliance order under a certain provision of the Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit’s judgement, holding that the compliance order issued to the Sacketts was a “final agency action” that can be heard. The 9th Circuit remanded the case pursuant to the Supreme Court’s orders.
In 2019, the case was re-opened in the District Court for the District of Idaho after being stayed for a number of years with hopes of settlement. The Sacketts’ motion for summary judgment was denied by the District Court.
In 2021, the 9th Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of summary judgment, affirming that the EPA had jurisdiction to declare the Sacketts’ property a wetland under the Clean Water Act.In 2022, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether or not the 9th Circuit used the proper test to determine whether or not the EPA has jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act to designate the Sacketts’ property as a wetland.
On May 25, 2023, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the Sacketts and rejecting the EPA’s interpretation of “waters of the United States.” In this major win for property rights and the rule of law, the Supreme Court made it clear, in the words of Justice Thomas, that “the Sackett’s land is not water, let alone a water of the United States.” While not cited directly in the decision, the Court endorsed MSLF’s argument that the EPA was owed no deference in this case, refusing to accept a tortured definition that would have made nearly the entirety of the country subject to the EPA’s jurisdiction over “waters of the United States.”
