Waters of the United States

This issue tracker focuses on federal regulatory actions and litigation concerning the definition of “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA), beginning with the 2015 Clean Water Rule. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive listing of regulations and to cover litigation as exhaustively as possible. 

This issue tracker covers the period from 2015 to present. 

3.22.24 – The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works issued guidance to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the implementation of its Civil Works missions following the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA, which limited the scope of wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) definition of “waters of the United States.” The memorandum states that [d]espite the lack of protection under the [Clean Water] Act, these aquatic resources continue to be of vital importance to the functioning of healthy watersheds and ecosystems” and, as a result, directs the Corps to use its authority and available resources to protect, restore and improve the health of the nation’s waters and wetlands. In this regard, the memorandum outlines three key categories of Civil Works actions, detailing both funding and priorities for each:

• Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration—the Corps will increase support for ecosystem restoration projects, including initiatives authorized under Section 206 of the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP). The Fiscal Year 2025 President’s Budget allocates $13 million specifically for Section 206 projects.
• Technical Assistance Programs—the Corps will offer technical assistance to communities and state agencies to effectively plan for the management and restoration of their waterways, particularly those most impacted by Sackett. Furthermore, the Corps will provide technical guidance to entities creating or revising water-related programs or regulations in response to the decision. $5 million has been allocated from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to support these efforts.
• Nature-Based Solutions—the Corps will incorporate nature-based solutions throughout the entire Civil Works project cycle, from the initial planning stages to design and construction.  

The memorandum also emphasized the importance of public transparency regarding the Corps’ jurisdictional determinations. It further directed the Corps to comply with the 2008 Mitigation Rule, which allows for the use of non-jurisdictional resources for compensatory mitigation in the Army permits. Finally, the memorandum directs the Corps to submit a comprehensive report detailing the impact of the Sackett decision on the Corps’ operations and the actions taken to comply with the directives outlined in this memorandum.  

9.8.23 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army published a final rule in the Federal Register, “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States;’ Conforming.” The rule amends the definition of “waters of the United States” to conform with the Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA. According to an accompanying factsheet, the final rule (1) removes “interstate wetlands” from the “interstate waters” jurisdictional language and “wetlands and streams” from the “additional waters” jurisdictional language; (2) removes the “significant nexus” standard from “tributaries,” “adjacent wetlands,” and “additional waters;” and (3) revises the definition of “adjacent” to “having a continuous surface connection.” The rule became effective immediately upon publication. 

1.18.23 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army published a final rule in the Federal Register, “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’.” The new rule is set to become effective on March 20, 2023. The EPA is expected to release a second rule in November 2023 to further clarify the WOTUS definition. For more information about the content of the final rule, refer to our Ag Law in the Spotlight—“Waters of the United States,” an Overview of the Rule.  

12.7.21 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army published a proposed rule in the Federal Register, “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’.” The proposed rule would restore the pre-2015 definition, with updates to reflect Supreme Court decisions. The agencies stated the proposed rule would uphold the longstanding exclusions of the pre-2015 regulations, along with the exemptions and exclusions as outlined in the Clean Water Act. The public comment period ended on February 7, 2022 (EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0602).  

1.20.21 – President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 13990, “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” directing agency heads to immediately review all agency actions taken during the Trump administration to identify any that conflict with the current administration’s policies. The order required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to review the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (85 FR 22250), published on April 21, 2020, which became effective on June 22, 2020.  

4.21.20 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army published a final rule in the Federal Register, “The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’.” The final rule defines WOTUS to include territorial seas and traditional navigable waters, perennial and intermittent tributaries, certain lakes, ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters, and adjacent wetlands. The final rule also defines waters that are considered “non-jurisdictional” and are therefore excluded from the definition of WOTUS. The final rule became effective on June 22, 2020.

10.22.19 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army published a final rule in the Federal Register, “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’–Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules.” The rule repealed the 2015 Clean Water Rule and restored the regulatory framework that was in place prior to the 2015 Clean water Rule, until a new definition is issued. The rule became effective on December 23, 2019.

2.14.19 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army published a proposed rule in the Federal Register, “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’,” that establishes a new definition for “waters of the United States.” This is the second and final step in a two-step process to review and revise the definition of “waters of the United States.”

2.6.18 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army published a final rule, “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’–Addition of an Applicability Date to 2015 Clean Water Rule.” The rule added an applicability date of February 6, 2020, to the 2015 Clean Water Rule to maintain the status quo while the agencies consider potential changes to the rule.  

7.27.17 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule and revert to the previous definition of “waters of the United States” that was in place before 2015. This is the first step in a two-step process to review and revise the definition of “waters of the United States.  

3.6.17 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army published a notice in the Federal Register announcing their intent to review and rescind or revise the 2015 Clean Water Rule.  

2.28.17 – President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13778, “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule,” directing the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to review the current Clean Water Rule. Upon completing the review, the Administrator and Assistant Secretary are to propose rescinding or revising the current rule.  

6.29.15 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army published a final rule in the Federal Register, “Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’.” The rule introduced a new definition of “waters of the United States” and was set to become effective on August 28, 2015.  

4.21.14 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army published a final rule in the Federal Register, “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ Under the Clean Water Act.” The proposes rule would clarify the scope of “waters of united states” under the Clean Water Act.  

Historical & legal background

Sackett, et al. v. Johnson, et al. [Case closed]
USDC Idaho, No. 2:08-cv-185

In April 2007, the Sacketts, private landowners, began construction of their home on a property located near Priest Lake, Idaho. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued an administrative compliance order interrupting construction after the agencies identified wetlands adjacent to Priest Lake on the construction site. The agencies asked the Sacketts to secure federal permission before proceeding with construction. Additionally, they required the Sacketts to remediate the site, warning of potential penalties if they failed to comply.

4.28.08 – In response to the U.S. EPA’s and the Corps’ enforcement order alleging that their property falls under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the CWA and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the order, arguing that the CWA standards for issuing such orders are “unconstitutionally vague.”

5.16.08 – The defendant U.S. EPA filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the court lacks statutory to review the pre-enforcement compliance order issued by the U.S. EPA and the Corps under the Clean Water Act. The defendant also argued that the EPA’s action is not yet final and raised arguments of ripeness and judicial interference with enforcement authority.

8.7.08 – The U.S. District Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that it lacks authority to address the plaintiffs’ claims until the defendants initiate an “enforcement proceeding” against them for violating the compliance order. Consequently, the case was dismissed in its entirety.

10.16.08 – The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Chantell Sackett, et al. v. EPA, et al. [Case closed]
Ninth Circuit, No. 08-35854

9.17.10 – The Ninth Circuit issued an opinion, affirming the U.S. district court’s decision and judgment dismissing the case, stating that the Clean Water Act (CWA) “precludes pre-enforcement judicial review of administrative compliance orders, and that such preclusion does not violate due process.”  

Chantell Sackett, et vir., v. EPA, et al. [Case closed]
U.S. Supreme Court, No. 10-1062

2.23.11 – The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling on subject matter jurisdiction.  

3.21.12 – The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling and remanded the case, holding that the compliance order issued by the defendants provided the necessary “finality” for federal courts to assert subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Clean Water Act (CWA) did not statutorily preclude judicial review, thereby allowing the plaintiffs to pursue their claims in federal courts.  

Sackett, et al. v. Johnson, et al. [Case closed]
USDC Idaho, No. 2:08-cv-185

9.4.15 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, challenging the defendant’s determination that their land fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA).

11.20.15 – The defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiffs’ property contained wetlands, which are considered “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act (CWA).  

3.31.19 – The U.S. District Court issued an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, determining that the plaintiffs’ property contained wetlands adjacent to traditionally navigable waters” and were consequently subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court dismissed the case in its entirety.

5.30.19 – The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

Michael Sackett, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case closed]
Ninth Circuit, No. 19-35469

8.16.21 – The Ninth Circuit Court issued an opinion upholding the U.S. District Court’s decision and judgment to dismiss the case in its entirety. The court concluded that the defendants’ determination that the plaintiffs’ property contained wetlands with a “significant nexus” to waters within federal jurisdiction was valid.  

Michael Sackett, et ux. v. EPA, et al. [Case closed]
U.S. Supreme Court, No. 21-454

9.22.21 – The Sacketts filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision upholding the dismissal of their case. The appellants asked the Court to revisit the Rapanos case and establish a clear majority rule for regulating wetlands, arguing “deep confusion” over the “significant nexus” standard and how it applies.  

1.24.22 – The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition and agreed to hear the case.  

4.11.22 – The petitioners Michael Sackett, et al. filed a brief advocating a two-step approach for to determine the U.S. EPA’s jurisdiction over wetlands, aligning with Justice Scalia’s “surface-water-connection” test: 1) whether the wetland meets the definition of “waters of the United States” by establishing a physical nexus between the wetland and “waters of the United States,” making it difficult to distinguish where the wetland ends and the water begins; and 2) whether the water is of the United States and falls under Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause. Additionally, the petitioners stated that the “significant nexus” test expands the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and that Congress never clearly intended to regulate more than traditional navigable waters, intrastate navigable waters linked to interstate commerce, and wetlands with a direct physical connection to “waters of the United States.”  

6.10.22 – Respondents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed a brief in opposition to the petition, reiterating their assertion that the wetlands on the petitioners’ property fell under the federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The U.S. EPA argued that adjacent wetlands, even those separated from navigable waters by a natural or artificial barrier, like a county road in this case, fall under the definition of “waters of the United States” under the CWA. The EPA asserted that Congress intended to include adjacent wetlands under the definition of “waters of the United States” when amending the CWA in 1977, and that court precedent supports this interpretation. Additionally, the U.S. EPA argued that a “continuous surface connection” should become the sole basis for determining CWA jurisdiction. The EPA’s position was that the wetland in this case was part of a larger wetland complex that historically flowed directly into the lake, and that shallow subsurface flow persists. The EPA concluded that the “significant nexus” test better accounts for the complexities of this situation than a “surface-water-connection” test. 

5.25.23 – The U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in favor of the petitioners and reversed the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision. The Court ruled that wetlands are considered “waters of the United States” only when they have a “continuous surface connection” to a navigable waterway. The Court clarified that to establish jurisdiction over a wetland, the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires determining the waterway adjacent to the wetland falls within the definition of “waters of the United States” and that there is a “continuous surface connection” between the wetland and the “waters of the United States.” 

6.26.23 – The U.S. Supreme Court issued its judgment.  

West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al. [Case open]
USDC North Dakota, No. 3:23-cv-32
Eighth Circuit, No. 23-2411 [Appeal dismissed]

2.16.23 – A coalition of 24 states filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) challenging the Final Rule issued on January 18, 2023, which revised the definition of “waters of the United States.” The plaintiff states asked the court to vacate and set aside the rule, alleging that it violates the U.S. Constitution, the Clean Water Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.  

2.21.23 – The plaintiff states filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the U.S. EPA from enforcing the rule. 

3.23.23 – A coalition of 18 businesses intervened in the lawsuit against the U.S. EPA, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The intervenors alleged that the EPA had unlawfully interpreted the Clean Water Act in promulgating the Final Rule and that the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act.  

3.29.23 – The intervenor-businesses filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, along with a supporting memorandum, to prevent the U.S. EPA from enforcing the rule.  

4.12.23 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiff states’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the EPA’s rule was unlikely to survive judicial review because it was arbitrary and arguably exceeded the agency’s statutory authority. The court also addressed constitutional concerns arising from the rule’s removal of the navigability requirement for federal jurisdiction over interstate waters.  

6.12.23 – The U.S. EPA appealed the U.S. District court’s decision to grant plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.  

6.26.23 – The U.S. EPA filed a motion to stay the proceedings so that it could amend its WOTUS rule to conform with the recent Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA. The EPA stated that the amended rule would be published by September 1, 2023, and that it would potentially resolve or narrow the issues in the present case.  

6.30.23 – The intervenor-businesses filed a motion for summary judgment along with a supporting memorandum.  

7.11.23 – The defendants-appellants filed a motion to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the EPA’s publication of an amended final rule. 

7.17.23 – The Eighth Circuit Court granted the defendants-appellants’ motion to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the EPA’s publication of an amended final rule.  

7.18.23 – The U.S. District Court granted the U.S. EPA’s motion to stay the proceedings until the EPA publishes a final rule. The plaintiff states did not oppose the motion, but the intervenor businesses did. The court directed all parties to submit a proposal for further proceedings within 21 days of the publication of the EPA’s final rule and directed EPA to submit status reports every 45 days during the stay.  

9.1.23 – The U.S. EPA submitted a status report indicating that it had issued an amended final rule consistent with the Supreme Court’s Sackett ruling for publication. The EPA stated that once the final rule was published, all parties would need to submit a proposal for further proceedings.  

9.29.23 – The parties submitted a joint proposal for future proceedings, under which the intervenor businesses withdrew their motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs would file an amended complaint, and the EPA would be allowed time to respond. The parties requested that the court issue an order directing such action.  

10.3.23 – The U.S. District Court issued an order finding that the intervenor businesses’ motion for summary judgment was moot.  

10.5.23 – The defendants-appellants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.  

10.10.23 – The U.S. District Court lifted the stay and ordered the parties to proceed as outlined in their joint proposal for future proceedings.  

10.10.23 – The Eighth Circuit Court granted the defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the appeal.

11.13.23 – The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking vacatur of the new “Waters of the United States” final rule as amended on September 8, 2023. The amended complaint argued that the new rule interprets WOTUS too broadly under the Clean Water Act, is arbitrary and capricious, was “promulgated … in violation of multiple procedural obligations,” and violates “the Commerce Clause, Due Process Clause, and the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” Additionally, the Cass County Farm Bureau along with the North Dakota Farm Bureau filed an amended intervenor complaint seeking declaratory judgment and remand of the rule. 

11.20.23 – A consortium of business organizations filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit as plaintiffs. They represent a group of businesses who would be directly impacted by the rule. 

12.12.23 – The U.S. District Court granted the business organizations’ motion to intervene as plaintiffs. 

12.12.23 – The business intervenor-plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the rule. They argued that the rule oversteps the defendant’s authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and urged the court to adopt a similar standard to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Sackett v. EPA. 

2.26.24 – The business intervenor-plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment along with a supporting memorandum arguing that the agencies’ revised rule failed to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett. More precisely, they contended that the revised rule did not adequately address the Sackett ruling’s requirement for indistinguishability between covered wetlands and covered waters.

2.26.24 – The plaintiff-states filed a motion for summary judgment with a supporting memorandum. They argued that the EPA and the Corps “misapplied” the Supreme Court’s precedent in Sackett v. EPA in their revised regulations. Specifically, the agencies’ amended final rule fails to account for the Court’s rejection of the “significant nexus” test for identifying waters of the United States. The Supreme Court in Sackett highlighted that the Clean Water Act (CWA) covers only “relatively permanent” bodies of water; however, the Amended Final Rule does not clearly define this term, which could lead to inconsistent and broad interpretations. Additionally, the Supreme Court stated that wetlands are protected under the CWA only if they have a “continuous surface connection” to relatively permanent waters. The Amended Final Rule, however, allows connections through non-jurisdictional features and without a consistent water connection, which goes against the Court’s requirement. Furthermore, the plaintiffs argued that the Amended Final Rule is unconstitutional. They claimed that the rule exceeds federal authority under the Commerce Clause by asserting jurisdiction over non-navigable and isolated waters. They also claimed that the rule violates the Due Process Clause by being overly vague and unclear, and the Tenth Amendment by infringing on states’ authority to manage their own land and water resources. The plaintiffs sought complete vacatur of the Amended Final Rule.  

4.26.24 – The federal defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment with a memorandum, arguing that the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the new amended regulations and that the plaintiffs cannot rely on each other because they present different claims, allege distinct injuries, and seek different forms of relief. Moreover, the defendants also claimed that the case is not ripe for review as the issues litigated have not occurred yet. 

4.26.24 – The intervenor-defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment along with a memorandum. They emphasized that the EPA and the Corps have the authority to interpret “waters of the United States” and have used extensive experience and science to define this term in the 2023 Amended Final Rule. They further argued that the Amended Final Rule conforms to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett and that any challenges to the rule are meritless.  

Commonwealth of Kentucky v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case open]
USDC E.D. Kentucky, No. 3:23-cv-7 [Lead case]
Sixth Circuit, No. 23-5343

2.22.23 – The Commonwealth of Kentucky filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to challenge the Final Rule issued on January 18, 2023, which revised the definition of “Waters of the United States.” The plaintiff asked the court to vacate and set aside the rule, alleging that it violated the U.S. Constitution, the Clean Water Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.  

2.23.23 – The Commonwealth of Kentucky filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the EPA and any supporting agencies from implementing the rule.  

2.28.23 – The U.S. District Court ordered this case to be consolidated with the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., No. 3:23-cv-8, naming the Commonwealth of Kentucky v. U.S. EPA, No. 3:23-cv-7 as the lead case and directing all future filings to be made in the lead case.  

3.31.23 – The U.S. District Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the claims without prejudice, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction because the case was not ripe for review and the court had not standing. The court determined that the plaintiff’s claims of “increased costs” due to the rule’s broadening of the EPA’s jurisdiction were too speculative to establish standing.  

4.4.23 – The Commonwealth of Kentucky filed an emergency motion for preliminary injunction pending appeal from the Sixth Circuit Court, claiming that the rule caused “ongoing irreparable harm.” In the motion, Kentucky asserted standing as a sovereign state because the promulgated rule interfered with its jurisdiction over traditionally controlled waters.  

4.5.23 – The private sector plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for preliminary injunction pending appeal from the Sixth Circuit Court, claiming to suffer “irreparable harm” like the Commonwealth. The plaintiffs argued that the court erred in its initial determination that they would suffer no harm until agencies determined that waters on their property were subject to federal jurisdiction under the rule.  

4.18.23 – Plaintiff the Commonwealth of Kentucky appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit the U.S. District Court’s decision denying its motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissing the complaint.  

4.19.23 – Plaintiff-Appellant the Commonwealth of Kentucky filed an emergency motion for injunction pending appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court, asserting standing as both a sovereign state with jurisdictional interests and a regulatory body facing substantial compliance costs.  

4.20.23 – The Sixth Circuit Court ordered an administrative stay of the EPA’s Final Rule until May 10, 2023, to “preserve the status quo” while considering the motions for preliminary injunction filed by both sets of plaintiffs.  

4.22.23 – Upon the appellee’s request, the Sixth Circuit Court clarified and ordered an administrative stay of enforcement of the agency’s final rule within the Commonwealth of Kentucky and against the Commonwealth, the Plaintiff-Appellants in KY, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 23-5345, and their members, until May 10, 2023.  

5.9.23 – The U.S. District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motions for emergency injunction pending appeal. The court noted that the plaintiffs in large had repeated the same arguments made in their previously denied motions for an injunction, and that the alleged harm was “de minimis” and speculative.  

5.10.23 – The Sixth Circuit Court granted the appellant Commonwealth of Kentucky’s motion for an injunction pending appeal. Unlike the U.S. District Cout, the Sixth Circuit found that the injury posed to Kentucky through the rule’s federal jurisdictional expansion satisfied the requirements for standing. The Sixth Circuit also found that the private sector plaintiffs had standing because the need to engage in additional consulting to determine the rule’s impact on pending projects was injury enough.  

6.30.23 – Appellees EPA and the Corps filed a motion to hold the case in abeyance pending publication of an amended final rule consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sackett v. EPA. The EPA argued that a published amended final rule would likely resolve or narrow the issues of the case, and that the final amended rule would be published by September 1, 2023.  

7.3.23 – The Sixth Circuit Court granted the appellee’s motion to hold the case in abeyance and directed appellees to file status reports every 60 days.  

9.1.23 – Appellees submitted a status report indicating that an amended final rule consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sackett v. EPA had been submitted for publication and would be published soon in the Federal Register. Appellees noted that the abeyance would end upon publication of the amended final rule.

10.26.23 – The parties jointly filed a motion to consolidate this case with the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., No. 23-5345.  

10.30.23 – The Sixth Circuit Court ordered the consolidation of this case with the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., No. 23-5345, naming the Commonwealth of Kentucky v. U.S. EPA, No. 23-5343 as the lead case.  

12.18.23 – The plaintiff-appellant filed their merits brief stating that the district court erred in dismissing the entire case. They argued that the court should have only denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, allowing the case to proceed. Furthermore, they argued that they have standing to seek the injunction due to the rule’s expansion of federal control over water resources, which they claim unfairly impacts their sovereignty. 

2.16.24 – The defendants-appellees filed their brief in support of the district court’s dismissal on the grounds that the plaintiff-appellant lacked standing. Furthermore, the appellees argued that even if standing had been established, the appeals are now moot following the subsequent publication of the amended rule. 

Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case closed]
USDC E.D. Kentucky, No. 3:23-cv-8 [Case consolidated]

2.22.23 – A coalition of private sector entities, including the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Associated General Contractors of Kentucky, Inc., Home Builders Association of Kentucky, Portland Cement Association, and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The complaint challenges the constitutionality of the Final Rule issued on January 18, 2023. The plaintiffs asked the court to vacate and set aside the rule in its entirety. 

2.22.23 – Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this case with the Commonwealth of Kentucky v. U.S. EPA, et al. case, No. 3:23-cv-7, arguing that both cases raised the same question of law or fact and were likely to be decided on a motion for summary judgment.  

2.22.23 – Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the rule along with a supporting memorandum. 

2.28.23 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate this case with the Commonwealth of Kentucky v. U.S. EPA case No. 3:23-cv-7. The court named Commonwealth of Kentucky v. U.S. EPA as the lead case and directed all future docketing to take place in the lead case. 

3.31.23 – The U.S. District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiffs had not suffered a “certainly impending injury” and thus had no standing to challenge the rule. The court noted that the plaintiffs’ alleged injury was speculative because the federal agencies promulgating the rule had not yet determined whether the plaintiffs’ land was subject to federal jurisdiction under the rule.  

State of Texas, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case open]
USDC S.D. Texas, No. 3:23-cv-17 [Lead case]
Fifth Circuit, No. 23-40306 [Appeal dismissed]

1.18.23 – The State of Texas along with several of its agencies filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, challenging the Final Rule issued on January 18, 2023. The plaintiffs argued that the rule was a federal jurisdictional intrusion on state sovereignty inconsistent with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and asked the court to vacate it.  

2.7.23 – Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the rule from taking effect, arguing that an injunction would serve the public interest and prevent “irreparable harm” to both the state and its agencies.  

2.9.23 – Bayou City Waterkeeper Inc. filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in the case with an interest in protecting the Lower Galveston Bay watershed.  

2.10.23 – Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this case with the American Farm Bureau Federation, et al. v. U.S. EPA et al. case, No. 3:23-cv-20. Both cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, challenging the EPA’s promulgated rule, and seeking a preliminary injunction.  

2.13.23 – The U.S. District Court ordered the consolidation of this case with the American Farm Bureau Federation, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., No. 3:23-cv-20, naming State of Texas, et al. V. U.S. EPA, et al. as the lead case.  

2.14.23 – The U.S. District Court granted Applicant-Intervenor Bayou City Waterkeeper’s motion to intervene in the lawsuit. 

2.27.13 – Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the state of Idaho and its administrative agencies as plaintiffs.  

3.19.23 – The U.S. District Court granted the state plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction while denying that of the association plaintiffs. The court found that the association plaintiffs have failed to show that the rule would cause irreparable harm.  

5.17.23 – Defendants EPA and the Corps appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit the U.S. District Court’s decision granting the state plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.  

6.28.23 – Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA, the state Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to vacate the rule. In the motion, the plaintiffs argued that the Sackett decision resolved the issues at hand by restricting federal authority under the Clean Water Act to navigable waters.  

6.28.23 – Similarly, the association plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the Supreme Court resolved the issues at hand in the Sackett decision.  

7.7.23 – Defendants EPA and the Corps filed a motion to stay the case pending publication of an amended rule consistent with the Sackett decision.  

7.10.23 – The U.S. District Court granted the defendants’ motion to stay the case pending publication of an amended rule. The court required the defendants to provide status reports every 45 days, and the parties to submit a proposal for continued proceedings within 21 days of the amended rule’s publication.  

9.8.23 – The federal defendants provided notice that the amended final rule was published.  

9.29.23 – The parties submitted a proposal for further proceedings, in which the plaintiffs indicated their intention to continue litigation pursuing vacation of the rule. The plaintiffs also withdrew their previously filed motions for summary judgment, stating that they intended to file amended complaints responding to the amended final rule.  

10.2.23 – The U.S. District Court filed an order striking the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment, in accordance with the proposal for further proceedings.  

10.6.23 – The Fifth Circuit Court dismissed the appeal.  

11.13.23 – The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint seeking declaratory judgment and remand of the new “Waters of the United States” final rule as amended on September 8, 2023. The plaintiffs-intervenors also filed a second amended complaint for declaratory judgment. 

2.2.24 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment requesting the court to vacate the agencies’ revised WOTUS definition. They argued that the definition was excessively broad, inconsistent under the Clean Water Act, and amounted to unconstitutional vagueness. Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that the revised rule failed to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett.  

4.2.24 – The defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated concrete harm resulting from the amended regulations; thus, this lawsuit is unripe. The defendants further clarified that the Supreme Court in Sackett ruled the EPA’s use of the significant-nexus test inadequate and that the Clean Water Act applies merely to waters with a “relatively permanent,” “connected to,” or “continuous surface connection” to navigable waters; however, the Supreme Court did not precisely define these terms. In response to Sackett, the EPA revised its regulations and argued they are fully consistent with Sackett and represent the best legal interpretation of waters of the United States. Consequently, the defendants requested the court to deny the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and enter final judgment in favor of the agencies.

4.16.24 – The intervenor-defendant Bayou City Waterkeeper filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Intervenor-defendant argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett settled petitioner’s claims of what constitutes “waters of the United States”, and the EPA’s new rule conforms to these standards. As such, intervenor-defendant argues that the new amended rule can be lawfully applied.  

American Farm Bureau, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case closed]
USDC S.D. Texas, No. 3:23-cv-20 [Case consolidated]

1.18.23 – A coalition of business entities, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers challenging the constitutionality of the Final Rule issued on January 18, 2023. The plaintiffs asked the court to declare the rule unlawful and vacate it.  

2.7.23 – Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the rule from taking effect, arguing that it was “hopelessly vague” and left them guessing as to what uses were still permitted on their property.  

2.13.23 – The U.S. District Court ordered this case to be consolidated with State of Texas, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., No. 3:23-cv-17, designating the latter case as the lead case.  

South Carolina Coastal Conservation League et al. v. Pruitt, et al. [Case closed] 
USDC South Carolina, No. 2:18-cv-330 
Fourth Circuit, No. 18-1988; No. 18-1964 

2.6.18 – Nine environmental conservation groups filed a complaint against the U.S. EPA Administrator E. Scott Pruitt, challenging the rule “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’–Addition of an Applicability Date to 2015 Clean Water Rule,” published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2018—also referred to as the Suspension Rule. The challenged rule delayed enforcement of the 2015 Clean Water Rule for two years. The plaintiffs allege that suspending the 2015 Clean Water Rule would leave vital wetlands and tributaries unprotected during the suspension period. The plaintiffs challenge the Suspension Rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), claiming that the EPA failed to provide an adequate public comment period, evaluate the potential consequences of suspending the 2015 Clean Water Rule, and fully reinstate the pre-rule protections of the Clean Water Act (CWA) during the suspension period.  

5.25.18 – Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, urging the U.S. District Court to invalidate the Suspension Rule. The plaintiffs contended that vacating the Suspension Rule would “ensure protection for the nation’s public health and aquatic resources.”  

6.22.18 – The defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asserting that they had adequately requested public comment. The defendants claimed that the Suspension Rule was necessary to prevent the 2015 Clean Water Rule from going into effect in certain states while being challenged and subject to injunctions in others.  

8.16.18 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, denying the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and effectively prohibiting the implementation of the Suspension Rule nationwide. The court determined that the defendants’ rulemaking process felt short of providing an adequate public comment period and, as a result, did not sufficiently assess the implications of the suspension. The U.S. District Court issued a final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.  

8.17.18 – The intervenor-defendants, primarily agricultural and other industrial associations, appealed the U.S. District Court’s final judgment, issued on August 16, 2018, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Case No. 18-1988).  

8.23.18 – The defendants appealed the U.S. District Court’s final judgment issued on August 16, 2018, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Case No. 18-1964).  

8.28.18 – The court consolidated case no. 18-1988, the intervenor-defendants’ appeal, with case no. 18-1964, defendants’ appeal.  

2.1.19 – The parties submitted a joint stipulation of dismissal.  

2.4.19 – The Fourth Circuit Court ordered the dismissal of the case.  

Oregon Cattlemen’s Association v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case closed] 
USDC Oregon, No. 3:19-cv-564 

4.16.19 – The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association filed a complaint challenging the validity of certain provisions of the 2015 Clean Water Rule, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiff argued that the rule’s definition of navigable waters exceeds the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. Additionally, the plaintiff raised concerns that the rule may violate the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Tenth Amendment.  

5.1.20 – The plaintiff filed a first supplemental complaint, reasserting its challenge to certain provisions of the 2015 Clean Water Rule and broadening its challenge to include the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, promulgated by the defendants on April 21, 2020. Additionally, the plaintiff sought judicial clarification regarding the regulations applicable to its members and requested that the court determine whether any provisions within the applicable regulations are invalid under the Clean Water Act or the U.S. Constitution.  

5.6.20 – The U.S. District Court issued an order staying claims one (1) through eight (8) of plaintiff’s first supplemental complaint pending resolution of the merits of plaintiff’s ninth (9) through sixteenth (16) claims, or until another federal court reinstates the 2015 regulations in Oregon.  

2.2.21 – In a minute order, the U.S. District Court stayed the case for 120 days.  

5.26.21 – The defendants filed a motion seeking to extend the stay of proceedings along with a status report.  The defendants clarified that the agencies are currently reviewing the Navigable Waters Protection Rule to determine its future status. The agencies anticipate completing their review by June 9, 2021. The requested extension will enable the parties to formulate their next steps in the litigation.  

5.26.21 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay of proceedings until July 1, 2021.  

7.1.21 – The defendants filed a motion seeking to extend the stay of proceedings. 

7.1.21 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay of proceedings until October 1, 2021.  

9.22.21 – The defendants filed a motion seeking to extend the stay of proceedings.  

9.22.21 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay of the proceedings until April 1, 2022.  

3.25.22 – The defendants filed a motion seeking to extend the stay of proceedings along with a status report.  

3.25.22 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay of the proceedings until the relevant agencies issue a final rule defining the “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act or decide to discontinue the rulemaking process.  

1.24.23 – The defendants filed a motion seeking to extend the stay of proceedings.  

1.24.23 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay of the proceedings.  

7.28.23 – The defendants filed a motion seeking to extend the stay of proceedings.  

7.31.23 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay of the proceedings. The court directed the parties to submit a status report by January 31, 2024.  

12.4.23 – The defendants filed a stipulated motion of voluntary dismissal. 

12.4.23 – The U.S. District Court dismissed the case without prejudice. 

Washington Cattlemen’s Association v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case closed] 
USDC W.D. Washington, No. 2:19-cv-569 

4.16.19 – The Washington Cattlemen’s Association filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the validity of certain provisions of the 2015 Clean Water Rule. The plaintiff argued that the definition exceeded the scope of the Clean Water Act, violated the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause, and infringed upon the Tenth Amendment.  

5.4.20 – The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint seeking judicial clarification regarding the applicability of certain provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule to its members. Additionally, the plaintiff requested that the court determine which provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, the 2015 Clean Water Rule, the 1986 regulations and related guidance documents are invalid under federal law or the U.S. Constitution.  

6.15.20 – The plaintiff filed a second motion for preliminary injunction seeking to halt enforcement of certain provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule.  

6.26.20 – The parties filed a joint stipulated motion to stay claims one (1) through eighteen (18), which pertain to both the 2015 Clean Water Rule and 2019 “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’–Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules” final rule. Additionally, both parties agreed to prioritize resolving claims nineteen (19) through twenty-six (26), which concerns the Navigable Waters Protection Rule issued in April 2020, before addressing the remaining claims.  

7.31.20 – The U.S. District Court entered an order staying the plaintiff’s claims regarding the 2015 Clean Water Rule as well as the 2019 Rule (“Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’–Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules”) until further order of the court. The court clarified that the parties may seek to lift the stay once the court rules on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims against the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule.  

2.2.21 – The parties jointly filed a motion to stay proceedings until May 1, 2021, in response to President Joe Biden’s Executive Order (EO) 13990 requiring a comprehensive review of the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule.  

2.8.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed the proceedings until May 1, 2021.  

4.29.21 – The defendants filed a motion requesting the court to continue the stay of the case until July 1, 2021.  

5.24.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed the proceedings until July 1, 2021.  

6.30.21 – The parties jointly moved to further stay the proceedings until October 1, 2021.  

7.6.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed the proceedings until October 1, 2021, in accordance with the parties’ stipulated motion.  

9.24.21 – The parties jointly moved to further stay the proceedings until April 1, 2022.  

9.29.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed the proceedings until April 1, 2022, in accordance with the parties’ stipulated motion. 

3.25.22 – The parties jointly moved to further stay the proceedings until either the agencies issue a final rule defining “waters of the United States” or they decide to terminate the rulemaking process.  

4.4.22 – The U.S. District Court stayed the proceedings until September 1, 2022.  

8.30.22 – The parties jointly moved to further stay the proceedings until January 20, 2023.  

8.31.22 – The U.S. District Court stayed the proceedings until January 20, 2023, in accordance with the parties’ stipulated motion.  

1.20.23 – The parties jointly moved to further stay the proceedings until July 31, 2023.  

1.23.23 – The U.S. District Court stayed the proceedings until July 31, 2023, in accordance with the parties’ stipulated motion.  

7.31.23 – The parties entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the case.  

New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association v. U.S. EPA [Case closed] 
USDC New Mexico, No. 1:19-cv-988 

10.22.19 – The New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) challenging the validity of the 2019 Rule (“Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’–Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules”), which repealed the 2015 Clean Water Rule and reinstated elements of the 1986 regulatory framework. The plaintiff asserted that the definition of navigable waters under the 1986 regulations and associated guidance documents was unduly broad, rendering it unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Non-Delegation Doctrine, and the Tenth Amendment.  

5.26.20 – The plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to halt the implementation of certain provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, including the definitions of regulated tributaries and adjacent wetlands adopted on April 21, 2020.  

2.8.21 – The parties jointly filed a motion to stay the proceedings until May 1, 2021, in response to President Joe Biden’s Executive Order (EO) 13990, requiring a comprehensive review of the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule.  

2.10.21 – The U.S. District Court issued an order granting a stay of proceedings in this case until May 1, 2021, and subsequently denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction without prejudice.  

3.16.21 – The defendants moved to stay the proceedings until June 1, 2021.  

4.29.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed the proceedings until June 1, 2021.  

5.25.21 – The defendants filed a motion requesting the court to continue the stay of the case until July 1, 2021.  

5.26.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed the proceedings until July 1, 2021.  

6.30.21 – The parties submitted a joint motion seeking to extend the stay of proceedings until October 1, 2021.  

7.7.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed the proceedings until October 1, 2021.  

9.30.21 – The parties submitted a joint motion seeking to extend the stay of proceedings until April 1, 2022. 

10.5.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed the proceedings until April 1, 2022.  

3.25.22 – The parties jointly requested an extension of the stay in this case until either the agencies issue a definition of “waters of the United States”, or they decide to terminate the rulemaking process.

3.29.22 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay of the case until either the agencies issue a final definition of “waters of the United States” or they decide to terminate the rulemaking process.  

2.1.23 – The parties jointly moved to stay the proceedings until the defendants finalize and issue an amended rule. They requested to resume the proceedings within 21 days of the rule’s publication.  

2.2.23 – The U.S. District Court ordered that the case remains in abeyance.  

7.31.23 – The defendants filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the case.  

South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, et al. v. Wheeler, et al. [Case closed] 
USDC South Carolina, No. 2:19-cv-3006 

10.23.19 – The South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, along with ten (10) environmental groups, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) repeal of the 2015 Clean Water Rule and reinstatement of the 1986 regulatory framework. The plaintiffs argued that the EPA’s action contravenes Supreme Court precedent and leaves certain waters of the United States unprotected due to an “unduly narrow interpretation of Justice Kennedy’s significant-nexus test.” Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that the repeal rule is both arbitrary and unlawful, violating the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

1.17.20 – The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  

2.14.20 – The plaintiffs submitted a motion requesting the court to defer proceedings for a 75-day period following the pre-publication of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule.  

2.18.20 – The U.S. District Court stayed the case for 75 days.  

5.29.20 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay for an additional 90-day period.  

9.4.20 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay for an additional 60-day period.  

10.27.20 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay for an additional 60-day period, up to and including January 2, 2021.  

12.23.20 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay for an additional 60-day period, up to and including March 4, 2021.  

3.4.21 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay until May 3, 2021, and dismissed the defendants’ motion to dismiss.  

4.29.21 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay for an additional 60 day-period, up to and including July 2, 2021.  

7.12.21 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay of the case until October 1, 2021.  

9.23.21 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay until January 3, 2022.  

12.20.21 – The parties jointly filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the case.  

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., et al. V. Wheeler, et al. [Case closed] 
USDC Maryland, No. 1:20-cv-1063

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Shorerivers brought two separate lawsuits challenging the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule, stating that “[w]hile these two actions represent step one and two of a bifurcated process to repeal and replace the 2015 Clean Water Rule, the regulatory records are distinct and the standards for repealing an existing regulation and promulgating a new regulation differ.”  

4.27.20 – The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Shorerivers filed a complaint challenging the Trump administration’s repeal of the 2015 Clean Water Rule, arguing that the repeal hinders the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Additionally, the plaintiffs seek a court order to invalidate the newly adopted Navigable Waters Protection Rule and reestablish the 2015 Clean Water Rule in the jurisdictions where it was previously in effect.  

8.21.20 – The plaintiffs moved to consolidate this case with Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., et al. v. Wheeler, et al., No. 1:20-cv-1064.  

8.24.20 – The U.S. District Court granted the motion by the plaintiffs to consolidate the proceedings.  

11.24.20 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a court order vacating the repeal of the 2015 Clean Water Rule and the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule, arguing that both actions violated the Clean Water Act’s intended purpose.  

1.15.21 – The defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment, arguing that the U.S. District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule reasonably defined “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act, and the repeal of the 2015 Clean Water Rule was consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  

1.29.21 – Both parties jointly filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending a review by the U.S. EPA of the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule and the 2019 Rule (Definition of “Waters of the United States”—Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules).  

2.2.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed the case until July 29, 2021.  

11.10.21 – Both parties jointly moved to stay the proceedings pending the issuance by the agencies of a final rule defining “waters of the United States” or a decision to discontinue the rulemaking process.  

11.29.21 – The U.S. District Court granted the  joint motion filed by the parties to stay the proceedings until the publication of a final rule in the Federal Register defining “waters of the United States” or until the relevant agencies indicate that they will no longer pursue the rulemaking process.  

2.7.23 – The parties jointly filed a motion to continue the stay.  

2.8.23 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay until July 31, 2023.  

7.7.23 – The plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal, which was approved by the court.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., et al. v. Wheeler, et al. [Case closed] 
USDC Maryland, No. 1:20-cv-1064

4.27.20 – The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Shorerivers filed a complaint challenging the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule and seeking a court order vacating it. Additionally, the plaintiffs requested an injunction to prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from enforcing the rule.  

8.24.20 – The plaintiffs moved to consolidate this case with Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., et al. v. Wheeler, et al., No. 1:20-cv-1063, which is the lead case in this matter.  

Conservation Law Foundation, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case closed] 
USDC Massachusetts, No. 1:20-cv-10820

4.29.20 – The Conservation Law Foundation, along with other environmental organizations, filed a complaint requesting the court to vacate and set aside the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, asserting that the rule violates the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  

8.3.20 – The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint further alleging that the Navigable Waters Protection Rule violates the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The plaintiffs argued that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to comply with their obligations under Section 7 of the ESA.  

10.15.20 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment requesting the court to vacate the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants failed to provide a sufficient explanation when removing Clean Water Act (CWA) protections for ephemeral streams and wetlands lacking “regular” surface-water. They further argued that the rule represents a narrow interpretation of the Clean Water Act’s authority.  

12.3.20 – The defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, raising issues of standing and arguing that the Rule interpreted “waters of the United States” consistently with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the court decision in the Rapanos case.  

6.9.21 – The defendant U.S. EPA filed a motion seeking to remand without vacatur of its 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule. According to an accompanying memorandum, the EPA plans to commence a new notice-and-comment rulemaking process to either replace or revise the WOTUS definition. The EPA’s decision to seek a remand stems from its review of the rule in compliance with President Joe Biden’s Executive Order (EO) 13990. The EPA concluded that the rule “is significantly reducing clean water protections.” 

9.1.21 – The U.S. District Court issued an order remanding EPA’s 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule and simultaneously dismissing the case. Citing the rule’s earlier vacatur by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in the case Pasqua Yaqui Tribe v. EPA, the court stated, “[g]iven the progress of related litigation elsewhere … [t]he most orderly means for me to assist in resolving the larger dispute over the Rule at issue is to remand this case to the agencies and correlatively dismiss it without separately addressing the merits as to which the litigation is in advanced stage in the District of Arizona.”  

South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, et al. v. Wheeler et al. [Case closed] 
USDC South Carolina, No. 2:20-cv-1687

4.29.20 – The South Carolina Coastal Conservation League and 12 other environmental groups filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), challenging the Navigable Waters Protection Rule adopted in April 2020. The lawsuit contends that the rule, which “haphazardly reverses decades of agency policy,” violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and U.S. Supreme Court precedent.  

5.28.20 – The American Farm Bureau Federation, along with 16 other organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, filed a motion to intervene in support of the defendants.  

6.11.20 – The U.S. District Court granted the motion to intervene in support of the defendants.  

7.10.20 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to vacate the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, arguing that the rule is inconsistent with both the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). More precisely, the plaintiffs claimed that the rule “undercuts the sole objective of the Clean Water Act” by excluding protections for traditional navigable waters. 

8.24.20 – The defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate “a concrete, imminent action” resulting in an injury in fact caused by the rule.  

3.2.21 – The U.S. District Court issued an order dismissing the parties ‘motions for summary judgment and stayed the proceedings for a 60-day period.  

6.21.21 – The defendants filed a motion to remand the Navigable Waters Protection Rule without vacatur. The EPA’s motion, consistent with its prior announcement, indicated plans to initiate a new proposed rulemaking to amend or replace the rule while it remains in effect in its original form.  

7.15.21 – In a one-page order, the U.S. District Court granted the EPA’s motion to remand the Navigable Waters Protection Rule without vacatur. The court, which had previously stayed the case to allow for the administration change and EPA review of the rule, provided no explanation for its ruling.  

State of California, et al. v. Wheeler [Case closed] 
USDC N.D. California, No. 3:20-cv-3005

5.1.20 – A coalition of states, environmental groups, and local governments filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), challenging the Navigable Waters Protection Rule adopted in April 2020. The plaintiffs argued that the new rule clashed with the Clean Water Act and disregarded Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” standard for waters of the United States established in Rapanos v. United States. 

The plaintiff-states include New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.  

5.18.20 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction or stay of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule pending the outcome of the litigation.  

6.1.20 – Twenty-two states filed a motion to intervene in support of the defendant U.S. EPA. The states include Georgia, West Virginia, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.  

6.10.20 – The U.S. District Court granted the motion to intervene in support of the defendant.  

6.19.20 – The U.S. District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to halt the implementation of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, finding that the rule was not “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.”  

11.23.20 – The state of California filed a motion for summary judgment, urging the district court to invalidate the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, calling it arbitrary and capricious. The state further argued that the rule’s interpretation of waters of the United States, particularly regarding ephemeral streams, is inconsistent with the Clean Water Act (CWA).  

1.19.21 – The defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the rule’s interpretation of waters of the United States was reasonable and consistent with the Clean Water Act (CWA).  

2.10.21 – The defendants filed a motion for a 60-day stay pending the outcome of the review mandated by President Joe Biden’s Executive Order 13990, which directed an immediate review of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule.  

2.17.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed the case for a 60-day period.  

4.9.21 – The defendants filed a motion to extend the stay of the proceedings for an additional 60 days.  

4.16.21 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay of the case for another 60 days.  

6.14.21 – The defendants filed a motion to extend the current stay until July 16, 2021, anticipating the agencies’ filing of a motion for remand without vacatur.  

6.16.21 – The U.S. District extended the stay of the case until it rules on the agencies’ motion for remand without vacatur.  

7.16.21 – The defendants filed a motion for voluntary remand without vacatur, urging the court to dismiss the case. In their motion, the defendants stated, [t]he agencies have identified numerous concerns with the [Navigable Waters Protection Rule], many of which have been raised by Plaintiffs in this case, and intend to evaluate those concerns through a new notice-and-comment rulemaking … Where, as here, the Agencies have committed to reconsidering the challenged action, the proper course is remand to allow the Agencies to address their concerns through the administrative process.”  

9.16.21 – The U.S. District Court granted the defendants’ motion for voluntary remand of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule without vacatur and dismissed the case.  

State of Colorado v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case closed] 
USDC Colorado, No. 1:20-cv-1461 
Tenth Circuit, No. 20-1238

5.22.20 – The state of Colorado filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) challenging the Navigable Waters Protection Rule adopted in April 2020. In its complaint, Colorado argued that the new definition violates the Clean Water Act (CWA) and alleged that its publication process was inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Further, the state argued that the absence of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  

6.1.20 – The plaintiff filed an amended motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent the U.S. EPA from enforcing the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. The plaintiffs argued that the rule in its current form would cause irreparable harm to the state by significantly restricting the scope of federal jurisdiction.  

6.19.20 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction halting the implementation of the rule in Colorado. The court’s decision aligned with the state’s argument that the rule violates the precedent established in the landmark case Rapanos v. United States.   

6.23.20 – The U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, challenging the preliminary injunction granted in favor of the plaintiff.  

7.9.20 – The defendant-appellants U.S. EPA and the Corps submitted their opening brief arguing against the U.S. District Court’s grant of a preliminary injunction.  

8.7.20 – The plaintiff-appellee Colorado filed an answering brief arguing that the U.S. District Court’s decision was consistent with both the Clean Water Act and the Rapanos decision.  

2.2.21 – The appellants filed a motion to stay the case for a 60-day period, pending the outcome of the review of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule mandated by President Joe Biden’s Executive Order 13990.  

3.1.21 – The Tenth Circuit Court denied the appellants’ motion to hold in abeyance their appeal of the U.S. District Court’s June 2020 injunction against the Navigable Waters Protection Rule.  

3.2.21 – The Tenth Circuit Court overturned the district court’s injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Tenth Circuit determined that the district court had overstepped its authority by granting Colorado injunctive relief against the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, emphasizing that the state had failed to establish the existence of irreparable harm that could not be adequately compensated through monetary damages.  

7.12.21 – The defendants and intervenor-defendants jointly filed a motion to stay the proceedings until January 14, 2022, considering the agencies’ announcement of their intention to initiate new rulemaking.  

7.14.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed all proceedings and administratively closed the case.  

1.14.22 – In a joint status report, the defendants and intervenor-defendants proposed maintaining the case’s status of abeyance and administrative closure until either the issuance of a new rule defining “waters of the United States” or until the agencies indicate that they will no longer pursue the rulemaking process. 

1.18.22 – The U.S. District Court granted the defendants’ request in their last status report to maintain the case’s abeyance.  

1.6.23 – Following the pre-publication of a new rule defining “waters of the United States on December 30, 2022, the plaintiff filed a stipulation of dismissal for the case.  

Navajo Nation v. Wheeler, et al. [Case closed] 
USDC New Mexico, No. 2:20-cv-602

6.22.20 – The Navajo Nation filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting the court to invalidate the 2019 Rescission Rule (“Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’—Recodification of Pre-Existing Rule) and the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule. Additionally, the tribe urged the agencies to “resume implementation of the 2015 Clean Water Rule, which provides a definition of ‘waters of the United States’ that respects controlling law, is grounded in sound science, and reflects a reasonable analysis of its impacts.”  

1.15.21 – The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to have the court vacate the 2019 Rescissions Rule and the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule. The plaintiffs argued that the repeal and replacement rules were arbitrary and capricious, published in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and inconsistent with the Clean Water Act (CWA).  

9.27.21 – The U.S. District Court invalidated the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule and remanded it back to the U.S. EPA and the Corps for further review. Aligning with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona’s August 2021 ruling in the case Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., the court determined that the rule’s inherent flaws and the “disruptive consequences of an interim change that may itself be changed” warranted it nullification. Additionally, the court highlighted the agencies’ own acknowledgment that, although the rule “categorically exclud[ed] all ephemeral waters,” they “did not look closely enough at the effect ephemeral waters have on traditional navigable waters” in making that decision and that nearly all of the over 1,500 streams assessed under the rule in Arizona and New Mexico were deemed non-jurisdictional ephemeral resources.   

10.26.21 – The parties jointly filed a motion to stay the proceedings related to the plaintiff’s remaining claims, pending either the issuance of a final rule defining “waters of the United States” or until the agencies indicate that they will no longer pursue the rulemaking process. 

10.28.21 – The U.S. District Court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay the proceedings related to the plaintiff’s remaining claims.  

1.19.23 – Following the pre-publication of a new rule defining “waters of the United States on December 30, 2022, the plaintiff filed a stipulation of dismissal for the case. 

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case closed] 
USDC Arizona, No. 4:20-cv-266 
Ninth Circuit, No. 21-16791 

6.22.20 – The Pasqua Yaqui Tribe and other tribes filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting the court to vacate and set aside the 2019 repeal rule and the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule, and to reinstate the 2015 Clean Water Rule.  

2.18.21 – The defendants filed a motion to request a 90-day stay of the proceedings considering President Joe Biden’s Executive Order (EO) 13990 mandating a review of the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule.  

8.30.21 – The U.S. District Court invalidated the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule and remanded it back to the U.S. EPA for further consideration; however, the 2019 repeal rule remains in effect pending further court proceedings regarding the lawsuit challenging the repeal rule. In reaching its decision, the court considered three key factors: (1) the severity of EPA’s errors in promulgating the 2020 rule, (2) the likelihood that EPA will amend the 2020 rule, and (3) the potential for significant environmental harm if the 2020 rule remains in effect upon remand. The court found that all three factors supported vacating the 2020 rule, highlighting that there are “substantial concerns about certain aspects of the NWPR … including whether the NWPR adequately considered the [Clean Water Act’s] statutory objective and the effects of the NWPR on the integrity of the nation’s waters.”  

10.25.21 – Multiple industry intervenors filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit challenging the U.S. District Court’s decision invalidating the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule. Simultaneously, the intervenors submitted a motion to stay the district court’s vacatur pending the appeal, arguing that the rule’s nullification and the ensuing return of the pre-2015 regulatory framework “will be unduly disruptive to the regulated community … [which] far exceed[s] any speculative injury asserted by Plaintiffs.” 

12.22.21 – The defendants-appellees U.S. EPA and the Corps filed a motion to dismiss the appeal by intervenor-defendants, arguing that they lacked standing due to the revision of the challenged rule prior to the appeal.  

1.4.22 – The plaintiffs-appellants filed a voluntary motion to dismiss the appeal.  

2.3.22 – The Ninth Circuit Court granted the appellants’ motion to dismiss as moot and dismissed the appellees’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as moot.  

2.8.23 – The defendants filed a stipulation of dismissal for the case. 

2.13.23 – The U.S. District Court granted the defendants’ stipulation of dismissal without prejudice.  

Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case closed] 
USDC W.D. Washington, No. 2:20-cv-950 

6.22.20 – Puget Soundkeeper Aliance, alongside the Sierra Club, Idaho Conservation League, and Mi Familia Vota, filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting the court to vacate and set aside the 2019 repeal rule and the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule and effectively reinstate the 2015 Clean Water Rule. The plaintiffs argued that the 2015 Clean Water Rule more effectively reflected the intentions of the Clean Water Act (CWA).  

9.24.20 – The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, arguing that the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule’s interpretation of the waters of the United States exceeds the agency’s statutory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA).  

2.5.21 – The parties filed a stipulated motion to stay the proceedings until May 1, 2021, in response to President Joe Biden’s Executive Order 13990 calling for a review of the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule.  

2.8.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed the proceedings until May 1, 2021.  

4.29.21 – The parties filed a stipulated motion seeking an extension of the stay until July 1, 2021.  

5.24.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed the proceedings until July 1, 2021.  

6.30.21 – The parties filed a stipulated motion seeking an extension of the stay until October 1, 2021. 

7.6.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed the proceedings until October 1, 2021. 

9.24.21 – The parties filed a stipulated motion seeking an extension of the stay until April 1, 2022. 

9.29.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed the proceedings until April 1, 2022. 

3.30.22 – In a joint motion, the parties requested a further extension of the stay until either the issuance of a final rule defining “waters of the United States” or until the agencies indicate that they will no longer pursue the rulemaking process. 

4.4.22 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay until either the issuance of a final rule defining “waters of the United States” or until the agencies indicate that they will no longer pursue the rulemaking process. 

8.30.22 – The parties filed a stipulated motion to further stay the case until January 20, 2023.  

9.2.22 – The U.S. District Court extended the stay until January 20, 2023.  

1.12.23 – The defendants filed a stipulation motion to dismiss the case without prejudice.  

South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, et al. v. Wheeler, et al. [Case closed] 
USDC South Carolina, No. 2:20-cv-3062 

8.26.20 – The South Carolina Coastal Conservation League filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) challenging the validity of the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule, published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2020. The plaintiffs urged the court to vacate the rule, asserting that it exceeds the EPA’s statutory authority and constitutes an arbitrary and capricious decision.  

1.8.21 – The defendant U.S. EPA filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the rule “reflects EPA’s reasonable, holistic interpretation of CWA section 401.”  

2.11.21 – The parties filed a stipulated motion to stay the proceedings until April 12, 2021, in response to President Joe Biden’s Executive Order 13990 calling for a review of the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule.  

2.17.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed the case for a 60-day period.  

4.12.21 – The defendants filed a motion to hold the proceedings in abeyance until June 4, 2021.  

4.14.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed the case until June 4, 2021.  

6.4.21 – The defendants filed a motion to maintain the case’s abeyance status until June 18, 2021.  

6.7.21 – The U.S. District Court stayed the case until June 18, 2021. 

7.1.21 – The defendants filed a motion to remand the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule without vacatur to the U.S. EPA.  

8.2.21 – The U.S. District Court remanded the rule to the U.S. EPA without vacatur.  

Litigation challenging subject matter jurisdiction

In re Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA, et al. [Case closed]
Sixth Circuit, No. 15-3751

7.13.15 – Murray Energy Corportation filed a petition for review of the 2015 Clean Water Rule, alleging that the rule unlawfully expanded federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The petitioner also claimed injury because the rule expanded federal jurisdiction to currently operating mine sites.  

9.16.15 – The Sixth Circuit Court issued an order noting the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s consolidation of all claims challenging the rule, with the Sixth Circuit as the transferee court, in Re: Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States,” No. 2663.  

10.1.15 – Petitioner Murray Energy Corporation filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that federal district court is the proper jurisdiction for such claims. Intervenor-respondents also filed motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

10.9.15 – The Sixth Circuit Court granted the petitioners’ motions to stay the 2015 Clean Water Rule, nationwide, pending the court’s determination of jurisdiction. The stay prevented the rule from taking effect. One justice dissented, arguing that the court should not have acted before determining jurisdiction. 

2.22.16 – The Sixth Circuit Court issued an order determining that it had jurisdiction to hear these claims on direct review, denying all pending motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  

Six petitions for rehearing en banc were filed from February 29, 2016, to March 23, 2016.  

4.21.16 – The Sixth Circuit Court denied all six petitions for rehearing en banc, concluding that the issues raised in the petitions had all been resolved in the initial decision.   

2.28.18 – The Sixth Circuit Court vacated the October 9, 2015, order staying the Clean Water Rule nationwide and dismissed all petitioners’ challenges to the rule for lack of jurisdiction following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling issued on January 22, 2018, in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, et al. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that those challenges to the 2015 Clean Water Rule must be filed in federal district courts.  

State of Ohio, et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Case closed]
Sixth Circuit, No. 15-3799

7.24.15 – The States of Ohio and Tennessee filed a petition for review of the 2015 Clean Water Rule, asking the court to vacate and set aside the rule. The state plaintiffs alleged that the rules expanded federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act farther than constitutionally allowed.  

9.16.15 – The Sixth Circuit issued an order noting the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s consolidation of all claims challenging the rule, naming the Sixth Circuit as the transferee court, in Re: Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States,” No. 2663. The court also granted all motions to intervene in these petitions.  

On October 2, 2015, intervenor-respondents, including Utility Water Act Group and Waterkeeper, filed multiple motions to dismiss all cases in which they had intervened for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  

10.9.15 – The Sixth Circuit Court granted petitioners’ motions to stay the 2015 Clean Water Rule nationwide, pending further order of the court, in cases nos. 15-3799, 15-3822, 15-3853, and 15-3887.

2.22.16 – The Sixth Circuit Court denied all pending motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Circuit Court retention of subject matter jurisdiction would serve Congress’s “manifest purposes.”  

Petitioners filed multiple petitions for rehearing en banc from February 29 to March 23, 2016, challenging the panel decision to deny the motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. They requested plenary review of the jurisdictional question, arguing that a “circuit split,” the question raised is a significant federal issue, and several members of the court have expressed reservations about the validity of its own precedent.  

4.21.16 – The Sixth Circuit Court denied all petitions for en banc rehearing, finding that the original hearing had fully considered all of the issues raised by petitioners.  

11.1.16 – State petitioners filed their opening brief, arguing that the rule exceeds its authority by attempting to regulate waters that the Supreme Court has held are outside the scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in cases like SWANCC and Rapanos. And even if the rule did not conflict with the Supreme Court’s prior rulings, its broad authority still requires clear congressional approval. The petitioners also claimed that the rule is a constitutional overreach, violating the Tenth Amendment by intruding on the states’ sovereign interests in regulating their land and water resources. It also infringes upon the Commerce Clause by asserting authority over intrastate waters that lack a substantial impact on or connection to interstate commerce and violates the Due Process Clause due to its vagueness.  

1.13.17 – Respondent filed its opening brief. 

1.22.18 – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, No. 16-299, that subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to the 2015 Clean Water Rule must be filed in federal district courts.  

2.28.18 – The Sixth Circuit Court lifted the stay of the case and dismissed all petitioners’ challenges to the 2015 Clean Water Rule for lack of jurisdiction.  

National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, et al. [Case closed]
U.S. Supreme Court, No. 16-299

9.2.16 – Petitioner the National Association of Manufacturers filed a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the Sixth Circuit Court’s opinion issued on February 22, 2016, in Re Murray Energy Corporation, Sixth Circuit, No. 15-3751, finding that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear challenges brought forth against the EPA’s 2015 Clean Water Rule.  

1.13.17 – The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of a certiorari.  

1.22.18 – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that those challenges to the 2015 Clean Water Rule must be filed in federal district courts. The court found that the challenges to the rule could not be brought directly to the circuit courts because they did not fall within subparagraphs (E) and (F) of $1369(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act.  

Litigation challenging the WOTUS regulatory definition

In RE: Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” [Case closed]
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), No. 2663

7.27.15 – The United States filed a motion to consolidate pretrial proceedings in multiple pending actions, including:  

• North Dakota, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., USDC North Dakota, No. 3:15-cv-3059  
• Murray Energy Corporation v. U.S. EPA, et al., USDC West Virginia, No. 1:15-cv-110 
• State of Ohio, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., USDC S.D. Ohio, No. 2:15-cv-2467
• State of Texas, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., USDC S.D. Texas, No. 3:15-cv-162 
• State of Georgia, et al. v. McCarthy, et al., USDC S.D. Georgia, No. 2:15-cv-79 
• American Farm Bureau Federation, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., USDC S.D. Texas, No. 3:15-cv-165 
• State of Oklahoma v. U.S. EPA, et al., USDC N.D. Oklahoma, No. 4:15-cv-381 
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., USDC N.D. Oklahoma, No. 4:15-cv-386 
• Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc. et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., USDC N.D. Georgia, No. 1:15-cv-2488  
• Washington Cattlemen’s Association et al. V. U.S. EPA, USDC Minnesota, No. 0:15-cv-3058 

10.13.15 – The Judicial Panel denied the motion to consolidate pretrial proceedings in multiple pending challenges to the 2015 Clean Water Rule. The panel explained that the cases will involve “very limited” pretrial proceedings and will turn primarily on questions of law. Additionally, the panel noted that various courts have already ruled on multiple motions for preliminary injunctive relief, resulting in different jurisdictional outcomes.  

North Dakota, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case open]
USDC North Dakota, No. 3:15-cv-59

6.29.15 – North Dakota, joined by the states of Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wyoming, filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers challenging the 2015 Clean Water Rule. The states alleged that the rule “unlawfully expands” federal jurisdiction over state land and water resources beyond the limits established under the Clean Water Act. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Environmental Policy Act, the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment.  

8.10.15 – The plaintiff states led by North Dakota filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking an order to prevent the EPA from implementing the 2015 Clean Water Rule until the litigation is resolved. They argued that the rule would cause irreparable harm, including monetary harm, and that it violated their sovereign rights to regulate state waters and lands.  

8.27.15 – The U.S. District Court granted North Dakota’s motion for preliminary injunction, finding that the harm to the states outweighed the burden on the EPA, and that claims of the state plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their merits.  

9.4.15 – The U.S. District Court issued a limited preliminary injunction against the rule, enjoining it only in the states of the plaintiffs. The court made this decision out of deference to other courts hearing similar cases.  

3.3.16 – The defendants filed motions to dismiss the case and dissolve the preliminary injunction, along with a supporting memorandum that argued that the Sixth Circuit Court’s decision in In re Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA, et al., No. 15-3751, had established that subject matter jurisdiction rest with the courts of appeals.  

5.24.16 – The U.S. District Court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case and dissolve the preliminary injunction and stayed the case pending a ruling on jurisdiction from either the Sixth Circuit Court or the U.S. Supreme Court. The court found that, considering the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, “it is unclear whether this court continues to retain jurisdiction over any claims alleged in the … complaint. What is clear, however, is that anything going forward in this court may be duplicative of the proceedings in the Sixth Circuit.”  

3.23.18 – The U.S. District Court lifted the stay after the Supreme Court’s decision in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, No. 16-299, held that subject matter jurisdiction to challenge the rule lies with the U.S. district courts.  

6.1.18 – Plaintiff-Intervenor, Iowa Governor Kimberly K. Reynolds, filed a motion for summary judgment, along with a supporting memorandum. She argued that the 2015 Clean Water Rule exceeded the scope of the Clean Water Act by including non-navigable interstate waters subject to its jurisdiction. Additionally, she criticized the connectivity study for failing to adequately support the rule. Governor Reynold’s motion requested that the court declare the rule unlawful and nullify it in its entirety, as well as issue an injunction to prevent the agencies from implementing or enforcing it and remand the matter for further review.  

 6.1.18 – The plaintiff-states filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by a supporting memorandum that reiterated their arguments from the original complaint, specifically that the 2015 Clean Water Rule violated the U.S. Constitution, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs requested that the 2015 Clean Water Rule be “permanently enjoined and set aside.”  

On May 14, 2019, the U.S. District Court allowed Colorado, the New Mexico Environment Department and the New Mexico State Engineer to withdraw as plaintiffs.  

4.23.20 – The U.S. District Court stayed the case for 60 days pending defendant’s publication of a final rule.  

6.22.20 – The plaintiff-states filed a motion to extend the stay pending resolution of related litigation in several other jurisdictions.  

6.24.20 – The U.S. District Court granted plaintiff’s motion to extend the stay.  

7.14.23 – Plaintiffs filed their latest status report, requesting that the district court continue the stay. The report concluded that the Sackett decision and the agencies’ planned amendments to the 2023 WOTUS Rule remain relevant to this action until a final WOTUS rule is promulgated consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. A new status report is due on December 29, 2023. 

On August 22, 2023, the U.S. District Court allowed Arizona to withdraw as plaintiff in the lawsuit.   

Murray Energy Corporation v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case closed]
USDC N.D. West Virginia, No. 1:15-cv-110

6.29.15 – Murray Energy Corporation filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers challenging the validity of the 2015 Clean Water Rule and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs alleged that the rule was a jurisdictional overreach by the federal government in violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA).  

8.26.15 – The U.S. District Court issued an opinion and order dismissing without prejudice the plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction and denying as moot all pending motions. The court found that the Sixth Circuit Court, where the plaintiffs had already filed a petition, was the proper venue to decide the issues.  

State of Ohio, et al. v. U.S EPA, et al. [Case closed]
USDC S.D. Ohio, No. 2:15-cv-2467
Sixth Circuit, No. 19-3500; No. 22-3292

6.29.15 – The State of Ohio and Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers challenging the validity of the 2015 Clean Water Rule. The plaintiffs alleged that “[t]he new Rule intrudes federal authority over intrastate ‘waters’ entirely within the State of Ohio and Michigan, and right up to the doorsteps of Ohio and Michigan citizens.”  

11.3.15 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to temporarily enjoin enforcement of the 2015 Clean Water Rule. 

3.26.19 – The U.S. District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.  

4.23.19 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s decision denying preliminary injunctive relief, citing inaccurate statements made by the defendants about the rulemaking proceedings for the rule.  

5.2.19 – The U.S District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, pointing out its original decision on the injunction, which confirmed that the rule was currently effective.  

5.28.19 – The plaintiffs appealed the U.S. District Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (No. 19-3500). 

8.5.20 – The Sixth Circuit Court dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the U.S. District Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The court reasoned that the U.S. EPA and the Corps have since repealed the 2015 Clean Water Rule and replaced it with a new rule, so the states have already received the relief they seek, and a preliminary injunction would have no practical effect.  

8.11.21 – The U.S. District Court ordered the parties to file a notice within 20 days indicating whether the case remains a live controversy, or to file a stipulation of dismissal.  

8.27.21 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a permanent injunction on the rule, alleging irreparable harm from the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) expanded jurisdiction.  

11.1.21 – The defendants-intervenor filed a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate irreparable harm from the rule.  

3.23.22 – The U.S. District Court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the case as moot.  

4.4.22 – The Plaintiffs—the State of Ohio and the State of Tennessee—appealed the District Court’s decision denying their motion for summary judgment and granting the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (No. 22-3292).  

9.29.22 – The Sixth Circuit Court held the case in abeyance pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA.  

7.25.23 – The Sixth Circuit Court lifted the abeyance of the appeal.  

8.25.23 – The State of Ohio filed a stipulation to dismiss itself from the appeal.  

9.8.23 – The Sixth Circuit Court granted the State of Ohio’s stipulation to dismiss itself from the appeal.  

9.13.23 – The parties filed a joint stipulation for dismissal of the State of Tennessee’s appeal.  

9.18.23 – The Sixth Circuit Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to dismiss the case. 

State of Texas, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case closed]
USDC S.D. Texas, No. 3:15-cv-162 [Lead case]

6.29.15 – The states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers challenging the 2015 Clean Water Rule. The plaintiffs alleged that the rule unlawfully expanded federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) publication requirements.

2.12.16 – The States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the implementation of the rule, arguing in a supporting memorandum that they would suffer irreparable harm from the rule.

On February 19, 2016, the U.S. District Court allowed the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and National Wildlife Federation (NWF) to intervene as defendants in the lawsuit.  

5.17.16 – The U.S. District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction in a minute entry order.  

2.2.17 – The U.S. District Court administratively closed the case after the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the Sixth Circuit Court’s jurisdiction to hear petitions for review of the 2015 Clean Water Rule, National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, et al., No. 16-299. The Sixth Circuit Court held the petitions in abeyance on January 25, 2017, In re Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA, No. 15-3751.  

2.1.18 – The states of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi filed a joint motion to reopen the case after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges to the 2015 Clean Water Rule, not courts of appeals.  

2.6.18 – The states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi filed a joint motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the rule, arguing that the Sixth Circuit Court’s stay would likely be lifted once the case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.  

2.7.18 – The U.S. District Court ordered the reopening of the case.  

9.12.18 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement of the 2015 Clean Water Rule in the states at bar. The court found that the state plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm from the rule’s enactment and that their claims were likely to succeed on the merits.  

9.21.18 – The U.S. District Court consolidated this case with the Texas Alliance for Responsible Growth, Environment and Transportation v. U.S. EPA, et al. case, No. 3:18-cv-176. 

10.18.18 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the 2015 Clean Water Rule violates the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Commerce Clause, and the Tenth Amendment.  

11.8.18 – The intervenor-Defendants—the Natural Resources Defense Council and the National Wildlife Federation—filed a cross motion for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims about the rule are without merit.  

5.28.19 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied all remaining pending motions as moot. The court remanded the rule to the appropriate administrative agencies, leaving the preliminary injunction in place pending the remand proceedings.

3.2.21 – The U.S. District Court dismissed the case following the repeal of the 2015 Clean Water Rule, which was published on April 21, 2020, in the Federal Register and became effective on June 22, 2020. 

State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler, et al. [Case closed]
USDC S.D. Georgia, No. 2:15-cv-79
Eleventh Circuit, No. 15-14035

6.30.15 – A coalition of 9 states—Georgia, West Virginia, Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Utah, and Wisconsin—filed a complaint requesting the court to enjoin the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from enforcing the 2015 Clean Water Rule. The plaintiff states argued that the definition of “waters of the United States” violates the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the CWA, Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, and the Tenth Amendment.  

7.21.15 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, arguing that the rule’s expansion would “unquestionably” inflict irreparable harm upon states and that granting an injunction would be in the best interest of the public.  

8.27.15 – The U.S. District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, citing a lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the courts of appeals have original jurisdiction in this matter.  

9.9.15 – Plaintiffs appealed the U.S. District Court’s decision denying their motion for preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  

1.24.18 – The Eleventh Circuit Court issued an order to vacate and remand the U.S. District Court’s decision denying the preliminary injunction for further proceedings, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, et al., No. 16-299.  

6.8.18 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement of the 2015 Clean Water Rule in each of the nine plaintiff-states.  

8.31.18 – Plaintiff the state of Georgia and Intervenor-Plaintiff the American Farm Bureau Federation filed motions for summary judgment alleging that the rule is unnecessarily vague and violates the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the Commerce Clause.  

10.10.18 – Intervenor-defendants—the National Wildlife Federation and One Hundred Miles—filed a cross motion for summary judgment arguing that the rule was scientifically grounded and published in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  

8.21.19 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiff-states’ motion for summary judgment and denied the intervenor-defendants’ motion, remanding the rule to the agencies for further proceedings. The court clarified that the preliminary injunctive will remain effective pending the outcome of the ongoing administrative proceedings regarding the WOTUS rule.  

9.17.19 – Plaintiff-states filed a motion for reconsideration or to alter or amend the U.S. District Court’s summary judgment order vacating the 2015 Clean Water Rule. They argued that vacatur is the appropriate remedy because the rule is unlawful and there is still a potential risk that it could go into effect in some or all the plaintiff states.  

1.3.20 – The U.S. District Court denied as moot the plaintiff-states’ and business plaintiffs-intervenors’ motions for reconsideration to alter or amend the judgment as well as the defendants-Intervenors’ motion to hold the case in abeyance following the repeal of the 2015 Clean Water Rule.  

1.7.20 – The U.S. District Court entered the judgment following the January 3, 2020, order of the court. 

American Farm Bureau Federation, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case closed]
USDC S.D. Texas, No. 3:15-cv-165

7.2.15 – A group of industry organizations, including the American Farm Bureau, filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers challenging the 2015 Clean Water Rule and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.  

1.30.18 – The plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the case to seek a preliminary injunction pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, et al. No. 16-299, issued on January 22, 2018.  

2.7.18 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction to prevent the rule from taking effect.  

2.7.18 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to reopen the case.  

9.12.18 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the rule in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The court found that plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on the merits and a threat of substantial harm.  

3.2.21 – The U.S. District Court dismissed the case because the rule was remanded to the EPA and the Corps, and a repeal rule was published on April 21, 2020.  

State of Oklahoma v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case closed]
USDC N.D. Oklahoma, No. 4:15-cv-381
Tenth Circuit, No. 19-5055

7.8.15 – The State of Oklahoma filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers challenging the 2015 Clean Water Rule as an unlawful violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Commerce Clause. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief.  

7.24.15 – The plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction to prevent the rule from taking effect, alleging that it infringes on state sovereignty and will cause significant harm.  

5.29.19 – The U.S. District Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the rule would cause “imminent and serious” harm warranting such relief.  

6.11.19 – The plaintiff appealed the U.S. District Court’s denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.   

6.13.19 – The parties jointly filed a motion for a stay of proceedings pending appeal of the denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction to the Tenth Circuit Court.  

6.14.19 – The U.S. District Court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay the case pending resolution of the plaintiff’s appeal.  

12.23.19 – The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the case.  

12.23.19 – The Tenth Circuit Court granted the parties’ joint motion for voluntary dismissal and dismissed the appeal. 

1.7.20 – The U.S. District Court dismissed the case by stipulation.  

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case closed]
USDC N.D. Oklahoma, No. 4:15-cv-386
Tenth Circuit, No. 16-5038

7.10.15 – A coalition of industry organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers challenging the 2015 Clean Water Rule, alleging that it violates the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the U.S. Constitution.

7.15.15 – The plaintiffs moved to consolidate this case with the State of Oklahoma v. U.S. EPA, et al., No. 4:15-cv-381.

7.20.15 – The plaintiffs filed a motion to stay all the proceedings in the case pending a ruling from the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) on a motion to transfer and consolidate this case with other similar cases.

7.24.15 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction alleging that they would suffer “irreparable harm” from new permit requirements necessary for land improvements due to the rule’s expansion of jurisdiction.

7.31.15 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a stay, pending the Judicial Panel on MDL’s ruling on the motion to transfer and the Sixth Circuit’s ruling on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in similar litigation.

2.24.16 – The U.S. District Court dismissed cases 4:15-cv-381 and 4:15-cv-386 without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After the Judicial Panel on MDL transferred all petitions for review of the rule to the Sixth Circuit, that court issued an opinion affirming the Federal Circuit’s subject matter jurisdiction over the present issue. Considering this ruling, the district court dismissed the present cases.

4.19.16 – Plaintiffs appealed the U.S. District Court’s judgment dismissing the cases to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

1.19.17 – The Tenth Circuit Court abated cases pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense case, No. 16-299.

3.14.17 – The Tenth Circuit continued to abate these cases while the Supreme Court case is pending.

1.29.18 – The Tenth Circuit lifted the abatement and reversed and remanded the district court’s decision to dismiss the cases for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, No. 16-299.

3.9.18 – The U.S. District Court administratively closed the case pending the defendant’s publication of a new rule defining “Waters of the United States.”

8.17.18 – The plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the case and seek a preliminary injunction, citing the August 16, 2018, order of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granting a preliminary injunction in the S.C. Coastal Conservation League v. Pruitt case, No. 2:18-cv-330.

12.7.18 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to reopen the case to rule on the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

12.26.18 – The U.S. District Court consolidated this case with case No. 4:15-cv-381, and all future pleadings must be filed in the lead case, No. 4:15-cv-381.

Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case closed]
USDC N.D. Georgia, No. 1:15-cv-2488

7.13.15 – The Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc., Georgia Agribusiness Council, Inc., and Greater Atlanta Homebuilders Association, Inc. filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, challenging the 2015 Clean Water Rule on the grounds that it violates the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the U.S. Constitution.

10.20.15 – The defendants filed a motion to stay the case pending the Sixth Circuit’s decision on whether it has jurisdiction to review challenges to the Clean Water Rule. The Sixth Circuit Court’s decision will determine whether circuit courts or district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over this issue.

10.21.15 – The U.S. District Court granted the defendants’ motion to stay the case.

10.23.15 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting the defendants’ motion to stay the case, arguing that the scope of the defendants’ motion was too narrow. The plaintiffs requested that the stay remain in place pending a decision from the Eleventh Circuit, rather than the Sixth Circuit, because the Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction over this district.

11.6.15 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and ordered that the stay remain in place until a decision is issued by either the Sixth or Eleventh Circuits, whichever occurs sooner.

3.1.16 – After the Sixth Circuit Court found subject matter jurisdiction with circuit courts, the plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the case pending the Eleventh Circuit Court’s decision on the same issue.

3.28.16 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to stay all proceedings in this case pending a decision on subject-matter jurisdiction from the Sixth Circuit en banc or the Eleventh Circuit, whichever comes first.

7.30.18 – The plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the stay of this case for one year, arguing that the rule was enjoined by the case State of Georgia, et al. v. Scott Pruitt, et al., No. 2:15-cv-79, and that defendants were rescinding and replacing the rule.

8.1.18 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to stay all proceedings for one year.

8.2.19 – The plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the stay of this case for one year, arguing that the rule was enjoined by the case State of Georgia, et al. v. Scott Pruitt, et al., No. 2:15-cv-79, and that defendants were rescinding and replacing the rule.

8.5.19 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to stay all proceedings in this case for one year.

7.31.20 – The plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the stay of this case for an additional year.

8.5.20 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to stay all proceedings for one year.

10.13.21 – Considering the order in Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. U.S. EPA, USDC Arizona, No. 4:20-cv-266, questioning the validity of the EPA’s proposal to rescind the rule, the plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the stay of proceedings in this action for one year.

10.14.21 – The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs’ request for a one-year extension of the stay on all proceedings in this case. The court specified that the stay would automatically be lifted if the 2015 Clean Water Rule became effective and applicable in Georgia or was scheduled to do so within a three-month period.

10.20.22 – The U.S. District Court dismissed the case without prejudice by stipulation.

Washington Cattlemen’s Association, et al. v. U.S. EPA [Case closed]
USDC Minnesota, No. 0:15-cv-3058

7.15.15 – A group of industry associations filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, challenging the 2015 Clean Water Rule and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.  

5.18.16 – The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, supported by a memorandum in which they point to the Sixth Circuit’s decision asserting circuit court jurisdiction over the issue.  

11.8.16 – The U.S. District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case without prejudice.  

11.14.16 – The U.S. District Court issued judgment.  

Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, et al. v. McCarthy, et al. [Case closed]
USDC W.D. Washington, No. 2:15-cv-1342
Ninth Circuit, No. 19-35074

8.20.15 – Puget Soundkeeper Alliance and the Sierra Club filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, challenging the 2015 Clean Water Rule. The plaintiffs argued that the EPA and the Corps exceeded their statutory authority in certain aspects of the rule, such as by excluding certain types of water from the protections required under the Clean Water Act. They also argued that these exclusions were arbitrary and capricious.   

9.8.15 – The federal defendants filed a motion to stay the case until November 15, 2015, pending a ruling from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on the motion to transfer and consolidate the case with other similar cases.  

9.9.15 – The U.S. District Court granted the defendants’ motion to stay the case.  

10.15.15 – The federal defendants filed a motion to stay the case while waiting for a decision from the Sixth Circuit Court regarding the appropriate jurisdiction for challenges to the 2015 Clean Water Rule. 

4.6.18 – The plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the case after the Sixth Circuit Court vacated its nationwide stay of the 2015 Clean Water Rule in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, which held that federal district courts, rather than court of appeals, have jurisdiction over challenges to the 2015 Clean Water Rule.  

4.27.18 – The U.S. District Court granted the federal defendants’ motion to reopen the case.  

5.1.18 – The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.  

7.27.18 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the rule unlawfully expands federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and violates the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) publication requirements.  

9.14.18 – The federal defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment alleging that the rule is consistent with both the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  

11.26.18 – The U.S. District Court issued an order partially granting and partially denying both parties’ motions for summary judgment, holding that the appropriate remedy in this case is the nationwide vacatur of the applicability date rule published on February 6, 2018, in the Federal Register.  

1.24.19 – The federal defendants appealed the U.S. District Court’s November 26, 2018, decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

3.12.19 – The Ninth Circuit Court granted the appellants’ motion to dismiss this appeal voluntarily.

9.11.20 – The plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case after the EPA and the Corps repealed the 2015 Clean Water Rule and promulgated the Navigable Waters Protection Rule.  

9.14.20 – The U.S. District Court dismissed the case without prejudice.