Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

For Immediate Release


Press Release

The Supreme Court Will Decide the Future of Clean Water for Generations

Polluters' legal challenge aims to maximize profits at the expense of the health of communities and our environment

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the case Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), deliberating what waterways and wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Sackett v. EPA is another troubling sign that the new supermajority in the nation’s highest court is pursuing a deregulatory path. Based on an extraordinarily narrow reading of the law, the Sacketts and their industry allies asked the Court to strip protections from about half of the country’s wetlands, as well as ephemeral streams, which play a critical role in ecosystems and account for 59% of all streams in the United States.  

Earthjustice filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of our clients — 18 Tribes who rely on waterways for food, economy, and culture — and are supportive of water protections.

“Congress passed the Clean Water Act to protect all our nation’s waters, and protecting wetlands is necessary to achieve that,” said Sambhav Sankar, SVP of Programs at Earthjustice. “Today we saw even the Court’s conservative Justices wrestle with the reality that all waters are connected, and the fact is that this industry-sponsored effort isn’t about protecting private property, it’s about radical deregulation. There will always be difficult line-drawing problems in environmental regulation, but time has shown that those lines should be drawn by scientists and politically accountable lawmakers—not unelected judges.” 

The Sacketts brought their case to the Court hoping to persuade the new conservative supermajority to revisit Rapanos v. United States and rewrite the Clean Water Act. After the Court’s 2006 decision in Rapanos, the EPA and Army Corps developed a workable regulatory system to define which wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act—namely, the ones that substantially impact downstream water quality. EPA and the Corps are now responding to concerns about the regulatory system by writing new regulations to further clarify the issue.

The Court’s decision to grant that request during an active rulemaking process -- the result of a legal challenge brought by Earthjustice -- demonstrates its willingness to disregard traditional principles of judicial restraint in service of a deregulatory agenda. But at today’s argument, we saw that agenda collides with the reality of environmental protection. As several Justices recognized, Congress expressly designed the Act to protect the “integrity” of our nation’s waters, and removing protections for wetlands—which filter pollutants, prevent harmful flooding, and more—would defy Congress’ purpose. 

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act to protect all the “waters of the United States” to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Today the Court struggled to reconcile the Sacketts’ and industry-sponsored arguments with the Act’s broad language, Congress’ purpose, and with the reality that all waters are connected.

The government’s position—and that of the environmental community—is that we should decide which wetlands the Act protects by considering the goals of the act (to protect water quality) and the science (the degree to which wetlands are connected to other waters).

The Sacketts want the Court to rule that the Act only protects wetlands that are physically indistinguishable from navigable water bodies. As even some conservative Justices acknowledged, this arbitrary line would defy the text and purposes of the act, decades of consistent legal interpretation, and the science of environmental protection. The Sacketts' approach would seriously threaten our nation’s waters.

A Supreme Court decision is likely in early 2023.


Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.

Fears of Escalation as Ukraine Answers Russian Missile Onslaught With Strike Deep Inside Invader's Territory

Ukrainian drones bombed two air bases more than 300 miles inside Russia, reportedly killing three soldiers, wounding four others, and damaging multiple warplanes.

Brett Wilkins ·

Patient Groups Push Congress to Combat Big Pharma Greed in Spending Bill

"As Congress works toward finalizing an end-of-year budget package, we urge the chambers to include bipartisan legislation to address abuse of the Food and Drug Administration's citizen petition process in order to reduce drug prices and save the government hundreds of millions of dollars."

Brett Wilkins ·

10,000+ Sign Open Letter Demanding Biden Order Paid Sick Leave for Railway Workers

"No one, especially in the world's richest nation, should have to choose between forgoing pay or working through severe illness and family emergencies," says The Lever's letter.

Jessica Corbett ·

Right-Wing SCOTUS Majority Signals Support for Anti-LGBTQ+ Reactionaries

"It does not bode well for the future of civil rights law that Gorsuch believes a state imposes 'reeducation training' on employers when it reminds them how to comply with nondiscrimination rules," said one court observer.

Julia Conley ·

Report Reveals Corporate Capture of Global Biodiversity Efforts Ahead of Summit

"Their 'solutions' are carefully crafted in order to not undermine their business models; ultimately they do nothing for the environment," said one Friends of the Earth campaigner.

Jessica Corbett ·

Common Dreams Logo