According to the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. USEPA, what must wetlands be contiguous with to be considered "jurisdictional"?

According to the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. USEPA, what must wetlands be contiguous with to be considered "jurisdictional"?

• A. State-owned land
• B. Critical habitat areas
• C. Open, navigable waters
• D. Private property with a "significant nexus"

Answer: (C)

In the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. USEPA, the court clarified the criteria under which wetlands could be deemed "jurisdictional" in relation to federal regulatory authority. The ruling established that for wetlands to be considered jurisdictional, they must be directly adjacent or contiguous to open, navigable waters. This decision aims to define the extent of federal jurisdiction over wetlands, emphasizing their connection to larger water bodies that are navigable. The determination of wetlands as "jurisdictional" hinges on their physical proximity to these navigable waters, reinforcing a clear boundary for federal oversight. This understanding is particularly significant for landowners and developers, as it delineates when federal regulations regarding water quality and environmental protections apply. Thus, the ruling focuses specifically on the relationship between wetlands and navigable waters, making that the correct criterion for determining jurisdictional status.

In the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. USEPA, the court clarified the criteria under which wetlands could be deemed "jurisdictional" in relation to federal regulatory authority. The ruling established that for wetlands to be considered jurisdictional, they must be directly adjacent or contiguous to open, navigable waters. This decision aims to define the extent of federal jurisdiction over wetlands, emphasizing their connection to larger water bodies that are navigable.

The determination of wetlands as "jurisdictional" hinges on their physical proximity to these navigable waters, reinforcing a clear boundary for federal oversight. This understanding is particularly significant for landowners and developers, as it delineates when federal regulations regarding water quality and environmental protections apply. Thus, the ruling focuses specifically on the relationship between wetlands and navigable waters, making that the correct criterion for determining jurisdictional status.