Petitioner Jeffrey Andrews resides on his family farm in Connecticut. His farm contains a short reach of an unnamed tributary to the Farm River, but no portion of the farm has a continuous surface water connection to that tributary or to the Farm River. In 2020, the United States—acting on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency—brought an enforcement action alleging that Mr. Andrews' earthmoving projects to improve his farm disturbed wetlands that qualify as "navigable waters" under the Clean Water Act.

In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), this Court held that EPA may only regulate those wetlands that are "as a practical matter indistinguishable" from covered waters. The Second Circuit nevertheless upheld EPA's authority over Mr. Andrews' farm by omitting Sackett's indistinguishability requirement, and by holding that, even after Sackett, EPA may regulate wetlands lacking a continuous surface water connection to covered waters.

The question presented is:

Was the Second Circuit correct to uphold Clean Water Act authority over wetlands that are not "as a practical matter indistinguishable" from covered waters?

Was the Second Circuit correct to uphold Clean Water Act authority over wetlands that are not 'as a practical matter indistinguishable' from covered waters?