October Term 2002 · Docket 01-1243
Does plowing wetlands require a federal permit?
Borden Ranch seeks to avoid a permit for plowing. The Corps argues the act requires one.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — 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.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Bishop argued the Corps must clear hurdles first.
Bishop stated Congress specified pollutant additions require permits.
Bishop claimed the government raised a new soil argument late.
Minear stated the Act restricted only specific wetland acres. Minear argued plowing exemptions show Congress understood pollutant risks.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 13-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 13-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 41-41
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Borden Ranch wants to subdivide land. The Corps regulates wetlands under the Clean Water Act. The dispute centers on plowing soil.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 13-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 13-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 29-41
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 10, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 41-41
What each side wants
Borden Ranch wants to avoid a permit for plowing.
The Corps wants to enforce the permit requirement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 13-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 13-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 29-41
What each side says
Bishop argues plowing is exempt from the permit.
Minear argues plowing adds pollutants to wetlands.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 13-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 13-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 29-41
What the justices asked
Stevens asked if soil came from outside the wetland.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 41-41
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of federal wetland regulation. It determines when farming activities trigger permit requirements. The outcome shapes land development and environmental protection.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 13-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 13-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 29-41
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 Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 41-41
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 13-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 13-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 13-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 13-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 29-41
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.