October Term 2022 · Docket 21-454

Does the Clean Water Act cover wetlands near navigable waters?

The Sacketts seek to build on land near a wetland. The EPA says the law protects that wetland.

Official caption
Sackett v. EPA
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion 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. Schiff argued the significant nexus test is overly broad.

    Mr. Fletcher stated that all parties agree some wetlands are protected.

    Justice Kagan noted dictionaries define adjacency as proximity, not touching.

    Justice Thomas questioned if purely intrastate waters count as navigable.

    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 Sacketts want to build a house. The EPA says the Clean Water Act protects the nearby wetland. The Court must define the term adjacent wetlands.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 3, 2022.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The Sacketts want to build their house without federal restrictions.

The EPA wants to enforce the Clean Water Act on the wetland.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The Sacketts argue the significant nexus test is too broad.

The EPA argues the statute explicitly includes adjacent wetlands.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked why the statutory requirement is not met here.

Justice Kagan asked if adjacent wetlands must physically touch the water.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines federal power over wetlands. It determines who controls land near water. It affects property rights nationwide.

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

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

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

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

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

Download this sanitized case as JSON