Oral Arguments in Sackett v. EPA
Facts of the case
---
Michael and Chantall Sackett own a residential lot near Priest Lake, Idaho, and want to build a home there. However, shortly after they began placing sand and gravel, the federal Environmental Protection Agency told them that they could not build on their lot because construction on the land violated the Clean Water Act. According to the EPA, the Sacketts’ lot contained wetlands that qualify as “navigable waters” regulated by the Act, so they needed to remove the sand and gravel and restore the property to its natural state.
Litigation ensued, and in 2012, the Supreme Court permitted the Sacketts to litigate their challenge to the EPA’s order in federal court. During the litigation, the EPA removed its compliance order.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the EPA’s withdrawal of the compliance order did not render the Sacketts’ challenge moot and that the EPA does have jurisdiction over their property under the Clean Water Act. The court reasoned that, under binding circuit precedent, “jurisdiction over wetlands depends upon the existence of a significant nexus between the wetlands in question and navigable waters in the traditional sense.”
Question Presented
---
What is the proper test for determining whether wetlands are “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act?
Produced by Uncivil Law LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGmglDvqKzQmiCoyN61YGjw/join
★☆★ CONNECT WITH ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA ★☆★
➡️ MERCHANDISE ➜ https://streamlabs.com/uncivillaw/merch
➡️ FOLLOW ME ON INSTA ➜ https://www.instagram.com/uncivil_law/
➡️ FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER ➜ https://twitter.com/UncivilLaw
➡️ FOLLOW ME ON FB PAGE ➜ https://www.facebook.com/UncivilLaw
➡️ FOLLOW ME ON TWITCH ➜ https://www.twitch.tv/uncivillaw
➡️ FOLLOW ME ON DISCORD ➜ https://discord.gg/4cYdVEs
🚨 Donate to uncivil law at ➜ https://paypal.me/uncivillaw
🚨 Email uncivil law at ➜ business@uncivillawllc.com
🚨 Join Uncivil Law at ➜ uncivillaw.locals.com
Tripod: https://amzn.to/3U11FWq
Camera: https://amzn.to/3KXFTyK
Travel Camera: https://amzn.to/3RrksIL
Lens: https://amzn.to/3U0Zbay
Mic: https://amzn.to/3AOC0ao
Mic Interface: https://amzn.to/3BnhMq2
Key Light: https://amzn.to/3RKRByE
Background Lights: https://amzn.to/3dIRYvo
The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
SwuM, Ben Belial - Reflect https://chll.to/672db1e8
-
12:45
Tom Grieve
1 year ago $0.02 earnedSUPREME COURT to ATF: Your Day Is Coming. Sackett v EPA, the Power of Agencies
211 -
8:48
UncivilLaw
10 months agoThe Power of Venue: Why the Supreme Court's Decision Matters More Than You Think
55 -
1:41:37
Potentially Criminal
1 year ago $0.03 earnedLake v. Hobbs - Court Ruling Review (with @UncivilLaw )
86 -
2:06:34
Potentially Criminal
4 months ago $0.19 earnedSCOTUS Arguments: Murthy v. Missouri
7281 -
18:40
Barry Zalma, Inc. on Insurance Law
3 years agoA Video Explaining the Application of Campbell v. State Farm to Punitive Damages Awards
4511 -
1:35:46
Robert Gouveia
2 years agoMANDATES? Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Biden’s OSHA Policies
4914 -
11:01
The David Knight Show
5 months agoAbsurd Court Decision Ignores Law & Constitution, Quotes TV Program
2K2 -
29:42
Project Sentinel
2 years agoRoe v Wade: A Constitutional Perspective
902 -
23:58
aburkhartlaw
2 years agoDid Amber Heard File a Frivolous Counterclaim? Depp v. Heard Commentary - Are Lawyers Honest? Part 3
10 -
8:33
Tom Grieve
1 year ago $0.02 earned4473 in Legal Crosshairs + Analyzed: USA v. Holden, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Don't Lie!
1481