The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear a challenge by Idaho landowners of a government ruling that they could not build a residence on land deemed as wetlands could signal justices' willingness to impose a more limited view of environmental protections under the U.S. Clean Water Act, sources familiar with the case suggest.
The nation’s top court agreed on Jan. 24 to consider whether a lower court used the correct test to determine that Michael and Chantelle Sackett could not legally challenge a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decision barring them from building the home on property that contained wetlands.