Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

SACKETT ET UX. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
AGENCY ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 21–454.  Argued October 3, 2022—Decided May 25, 2023 

Petitioners  Michael  and  Chantell  Sackett  purchased  property  near 
Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare 
for building a home.  The Environmental Protection Agency informed 
the  Sacketts  that  their  property  contained  wetlands  and  that  their 
backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging
pollutants into “the waters of the United States.”  33 U. S. C. §1362(7).
The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties
of over $40,000 per day.  The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sack-
etts’ lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch
that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate
lake.  The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not “waters
of the United States.”  The District Court entered summary judgment 
for the EPA.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the CWA covers 
wetlands with an ecologically significant nexus to traditional naviga-
ble waters and that the Sacketts’ wetlands satisfy that standard. 

Held: The  CWA’s  use  of  “waters”  in  §1362(7)  refers  only  to  “geo-
graphic[al]  features  that  are  described  in  ordinary  parlance  as 
‘streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes’ ” and to adjacent wetlands that are
“indistinguishable” from those bodies of water due to a continuous sur-
face connection.  Rapanos v. United States, 547 U. S. 715, 755, 742, 739 
(plurality opinion).  To assert jurisdiction over an adjacent wetland un-
der the CWA, a party must establish “first, that the adjacent [body of 
water constitutes] . . . ‘water[s] of the United States’ (i.e., a relatively
permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable
waters);  and  second,  that  the  wetland  has  a  continuous  surface  con-
nection  with  that  water,  making  it  difficult  to  determine  where  the 
‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.”  Ibid.  Pp. 6–28.