Farms.com Home   News

NAWG Responds to SCOTUS Ruling in Sackett V. EPA Case

By Mariah Wollweber 

Today, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Sackett v. EPA that narrows the extent of federal jurisdiction over bodies of water under the Clean Water Act.

“NAWG is pleased with the rule the Supreme Court issued today that rejected the confusing and expansive “significant nexus” test that broadened the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act,” said NAWG CEO Chandler Goule. “The Supreme Court ruling sided with a narrower definition of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction and limited the number of wetlands that would come under the regulation of the Clean Water Act.”

Last year, NAWG joined several other agriculture groups in filing a brief with the Supreme Court stating the complexity of the definitions and impact on agriculture. NAWG will continue to advocate that any regulation is limited in scope to navigable waters and provides farmers clarity on which waters are jurisdictional.

About NAWG

NAWG is the primary policy representative in Washington D.C. for wheat growers, working to ensure a better future for America’s growers, the industry and the general public.

Click here to see more...

Trending Video

USDA Feb Crop Report a WIN for Soybeans + 1 Year Trade Truce Extension

Video: USDA Feb Crop Report a WIN for Soybeans + 1 Year Trade Truce Extension


USDA took Trumps comments that China would buy more U.S. soybeans seriously and headline news that the U.S./China trade truce would be extended when Trump/Xi meet in the first week of April was a BIG WIN for soybeans this week! 2026 “Mini” U.S. ethanol boom thanks to 45Z + China’s ban of phosphates from Feb. – August of 2026 will not help lower fertilizer prices anytime soon! 30 mmt of Chinese corn harvest is of poor quality and maybe a technical breakout in wheat futures.

*Apologies! Where we talk about the latest CFTC update as of 10th Feb 2026, managed money funds covered their net short position in canola to the tune of +42,746 week-on-week to flip to net long 145 contracts and not (as we mistakenly said) +90,009 wk/wk to 47,408.