On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court dropped an absolute bombshell with its ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. Early assessments of Sackett underscore two vital points: much has been lost for wetlands protection, and much has changed with respect to the Court’s broader environmental law jurisprudence. This Comment delves into both of these issues, providing some background on the unique and long-running controversy that was at the heart of Sackett, and parsing the four opinions from the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s May ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency sharply limited the scope of the federal Clean Water Act’s (CWA’s) protection for the nation’s waters. The Court redefined the Act’s coverage of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), effectively removing protection from many wetlands that have been covered under the Act for almost a half century. On June 8, 2023, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts that analyzed the consequences of Sackett and discussed what actions can be taken to protect non-WOTUS waters.

This abstract is adapted from Albert C. Lin, Making Net Zero Matter, 79 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 679 (2022), and used with permission.

This abstract is adapted from Cass R. Sunstein, Arbitrariness Review and Climate Change, 170 U. Pa. L. Rev. 991 (2022), and used with permission.

In 4°C, Ruhl and Craig effectively argue that governance measures, particularly adaptation planning, will fall short if institutions fail to embrace the real possibility that the planet will blow well past 2° Celsius (°C) above pre-industrial temperatures. Further, they argue that 4°C is a better target for adaptation planning because this metric better captures the future risk the nation faces. Ruhl and Craig are keenly aware that serious talk of a possible 4°C future will almost certainly trigger accusations of “doomism” from various critics.