October Term 2000 · Docket 99-1178

Does the Clean Water Act cover isolated wetlands?

A county group challenges federal wetland protection rules.

Official caption
Solid Waste Agency of No. Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Wallace cited the Act's goal to protect wildlife.

    Mr. Bishop represented the county group.

    Chief Justice Rehnquist introduced the case.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The Clean Water Act aims to protect water quality and wildlife.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 31, 2000.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The county group seeks to limit federal wetland authority.

The Army Corps seeks to maintain broad wetland protection.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The county group argues the law excludes isolated wetlands.

The Army Corps argues the law protects all wetlands.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Does the statute cover isolated wetlands?

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines federal power over local wetlands.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON