Docket (list of what papers were filed and by whom but NO direct route to the actual briefs):

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-290.htm

The Actual Briefs:

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/2015_2016_briefs/15-290.html

the government can just cycle a person through the agency process numerous times until they run out of funds to pay their lawyers.

Thus the Courts tend to defer to such agencies when it comes not only to facts of a particular case, but also any regulations those agencies produce. The classic example of this is an automobile, can a Judge will decide if an automobile is fit to be on the road? Or should be defer to engineers who know something about how automobile actually work? The better answer is to defer to the engineers which is what most Judges will do.

Please note, "Wet Lands" are NOT land that can be wet every so often, the Corp has defined "Wet Lands" based on the PLANTS living on the land. Thus a piece of land, that is occasionally flooded but has no such plant life is NOT "Wet Lands". On the other hand a piece of property that NEVER floods, but the water table is so high that those plants grow on that land is "Wet Lands".

Furthermore, the law does NOT forbid the use of "Wet Lands" but any use that permanently "DISTURBS" the "Wet lands" (i.e. change the nature of the "Wet Lands&quot . Thus the mere determination that a piece of land is "Wet Lands" is just PART of the administrative process to determine the use of the land. How that use disturbs the "Wet Lands" is the real heart of the fight, and that fight is done in the permit process NOT in determining if a piece of land is "Wet Lands" or not.

The issue in this case is the Corp of Engineers determined a piece of property was "Wet lands" and could NOT be disturbed without getting a permit first. The land owner wants to challenge the determination of "Wet Lands" but that is done in the permitting process, for some types of use of "wet lands" are permitted (in fact MOST uses of "Wet Lands" are permitted, but to protect such "Wet Lands" the Corp wants people to get permits to make sure no real loss of "Wet Lands" occur).

What this company wants to do is fill in what the Corp has called "Wet Lands" WITHOUT running the risk of being held liable for disturbing "Wet Lands" WITHOUT going through the Permitting process. Filling in "Wet Lands" is NOT a permitted use for "Wet Lands", UNLESS you can show no net loss of "Wet Lands" by obtaining or making new "Wet Lands" or other mitigation (Such as returning the land to "Wet Lands" once you are done with it). The Corp's position is such mitigation of the loss of "Wet Lands" is the reason for the permit. Such mitigation is best determined by experts in the field of "Wet Lands" not by judges. If there is an actual dispute between experts, then a judge can decide who to believe, but we are NOT even at that stage yet.

In simple terms, a determination that something is "Wet Lands" is just a small step in the process on how to handle that "Wet Lands". The real issue is how does the propose change in the "Wet Lands" affect the "Wet Lands" NOT that the property is "Wet Lands". The determination of how the change will affect the land is to be decided by experts in the field and that is the Corp of Engineers in the permit process NOT the court.

where they essentially review their own decisions, tell themselves to revise it, they revise it, then they review that decision, tell themselves to revise it again, until the citizen runs out of money to pay their lawyers.

The reason the administrative system was developed was some sort of regulation was needed. Prior to the Clean Harbor Act of 1899 (See Rivers and Harbors Act. of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).” 33 C.F.R. 331.2., cited in the Corp's Brief) you had a mess when it came to such Rivers and Harbors. In Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) of 1972, Congress required anyone discharging waters into any Waters of the United States to get a PERMIT for such a discharge. The Corp has long taken the position that any Water is a Water of the United States, but the Supreme Court has put a restriction on that interpretation, if the water does NOT flow into a stream, creek river or ocean, it is NOT a water of the United States.

The terms "Waters of the United States" reflect the Common Law Rule that any Natural Flow of Water is a public highway and as such owned by the State or the United States NOT the property owners on both sides of the water flow. How small such water flow varies from state to state, in my home state of Pennsylvania, such water is a public highway UNLESS it starts on your property. Most states follow a similar rule (Through some states do make other restrictions such as could it be used by someone pulling a canoe?). Some states look at the history of the stream and had it been actually used by canoes or boats as oppose to being able to be used by canoes.

The Supreme Court prior ruling only applied to a situation where water did NOT flow off the property of the owner. The court in that case said such water is NOT "waters of the United States" and thus the Clean Water Act does not apply to such a body of water.

In this case the land does drain into a river and thus the prior decision is NOT controlling in this case. Worse, recent studies have indicated that water flow of rivers are affected and affect underground water in the area of the River. When one is low, so is the other, when one is high so is the other even when we know of no connection between the two (The recent drought in the Southwest has shown this to be the case). Thus the Corp's position is since the water in this "Wet Lands" flows into a river many miles away, it is a "Water of the United States" and as such ANY discharge into that water must have a permit.

The Clean Water Act of 1972 was intended to clean up the waters of the United States by restricting discharges into those Waters. It was known when the Act was passed that a complete ban was unworkable, so the permit system was made by CONGRESS so that the slow process of cleaning up the "Waters of the United States" could begin. Something had to be done and once you accept that idea that some discharges MUST occur, regulation of those discharges is required. Such regulations is the background for the permits. Without those regulations and permits, people could do what they did prior to the Clean Water Act of 1972, dump anything they wanted into the nearest flow of water.

Once you decided you can NOT ban such discharges AND at the same time clean up the water ways, regulation through the process of permits is the only alternative. Any such permits have to be issue by people who know something about what they are regulating and thus in this case the Corp of Engineers NOT the courts.