Because of lawsuits over the January 2023 Rule, the federal definition of "waters of the United States" a pond builder faces depends on the state the pond is in. EPA says many Clean Water Act programs apply only to those waters, and that programs including sections 402 and 404 address "navigable waters," which the statute defines as "the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas." As of EPA's Rule Status page (last updated Sept. 9, 2026), EPA and the Army implement the January 2023 Rule as amended by the September 2023 conforming rule (the "Amended 2023 Rule") in 24 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Territories, and in the other 26 states interpret the term consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime and the Supreme Court's Sackett decision "until further notice." [1][2][3]
EPA's page ties that split to two 2023 preliminary injunctions: a March 19, 2023 order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas covering Idaho and Texas (Texas v. EPA), and an April 12, 2023 order of a North Dakota district court covering 24 states (West Virginia v. EPA). Pennsylvania, Kentucky and North Carolina are not named in either injunction and are among the states where the Amended 2023 Rule is operative. [1][4][5]
EPA says its state map is provided for informational purposes only to show which definition is "generally operative" in each state, and "cannot be relied on for specific determinations or other legal purposes." For specific questions about a pending jurisdictional determination or permit, EPA directs states, Tribes and other entities to a local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District office or EPA. [1]
Neither injunction was reviewed on appeal: the agencies' Fifth Circuit appeal of the Texas order was dismissed on their own motion as of Oct. 6, 2023, and their Eighth Circuit appeal of the North Dakota order was dismissed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), with the mandate entered on the district docket Oct. 10, 2023. The Texas court stayed its case on Feb. 4, 2025, and the North Dakota court entered an order granting a motion to stay on Feb. 18, 2025. Repository (RECAP/CourtListener) copies of the two district-court dockets show no entry lifting either stay or either injunction; their last known filings are Aug. 10, 2026 (Texas v. EPA) and April 23, 2026 (West Virginia v. EPA). [6][7][8][9][10]
EPA says that while a May 10, 2023 Sixth Circuit order pending appeal was in effect, the agencies applied the pre-2015 regime in Kentucky and for the business plaintiffs-appellants and their members. As of Sept. 23, 2024, when the court's mandate lifted that order, EPA says the Amended 2023 Rule is operative in Kentucky and for those plaintiffs-appellants and their members, except in jurisdictions where court orders in other litigation preliminarily enjoin it. In North Carolina, the federal district court in White v. EPA on June 18, 2024 denied a landowner's motion to preliminarily enjoin the agencies from enforcing the Amended 2023 Rule against him and his properties. That district case was stayed for an additional 90 days by an order filed Sept. 11, 2026, and on June 18, 2026 the Fourth Circuit extended the abeyance of White's appeal until Sept. 8, 2026, a date that has passed; the text of a further appellate order filed Sept. 10, 2026 is not in the free RECAP archive and was not read, so the appeal's status since then is not confirmed. [1][11][12][13][14]
PROPOSED, not final: On Sept. 9, 2026 EPA and the Army published a supplemental proposal for the "Updated Definition of 'Waters of the United States,'" supplementing their November 2025 proposal, and EPA's Rule Status page (last updated Sept. 9, 2026) reports no court ruling on either. The November 2025 proposal says the ongoing litigation over the 2023 Rule was in abeyance as of its signature date. The supplemental proposal says the definition "has been in significant flux," citing five rule revisions in eleven years, a major Supreme Court decision, a memorandum to the field and "a constant stream of lower court rulings, injunctions and vacaturs," and that the agencies "seek to now put an end to such uncertainty." [1][15][16]
Key points
Official sources disagree
EPA's Rule Status page describes the Sixth Circuit's May 10, 2023 order in the Kentucky case as a stay pending appeal, lifted by the court's mandate on Sept. 23, 2024; the agencies' November 2025 proposed-rule preamble calls it an injunction pending appeal that dissolved when the mandate issued on Sept. 23, 2024. Both say the order ended on that date. [1][15]
StatusIN FORCE (as of EPA's page last updated September 9, 2026): Because of the ongoing litigation over the January 2023 Rule, EPA and the Army are implementing the January 2023 Rule as amended by the September 2023 conforming rule in 24 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Territories. In the other 26 states they interpret 'waters of the United States' consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime and the Supreme Court's Sackett decision 'until further notice.'
Applies when: All states; which regime applies depends on the state.EPA, Definition of "Waters of the United States": Rule Status and Litigation Update (web page, last updated Sept. 9, 2026) [1]Show the source text
As a result of ongoing litigation on the January 2023 Rule, the agencies are implementing the January 2023 Rule, as amended by the conforming rule, in 24 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Territories. In the other 26 states, the agencies are interpreting "waters of the United States" consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime and the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett until further notice. ... Last updated on September 9, 2026
StatusEPA's 'Current Implementation of Waters of the United States' page (last updated September 9, 2026) says the January 2023 Rule 'is not currently operative in certain states due to ongoing litigation'. Where it is not enjoined, the agencies implement it as amended by the conforming rule; where it is enjoined, they interpret 'waters of the United States' consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime and Sackett. The page refers readers to the Rule Status page for litigation status.
EPA, Current Implementation of Waters of the United States (web page, last updated Sept. 9, 2026) [2]Show the source text
the January 2023 Rule is not currently operative in certain states due to ongoing litigation. Where the January 2023 Rule is not enjoined, the agencies are implementing the January 2023 Rule, as amended by the conforming rule. In the jurisdictions where the January 2023 Rule is enjoined, the agencies are interpreting "waters of the United States" consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime and the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett. Please visit the Rule Status page for additional information ... Last updated on September 9, 2026
StatusEPA's rule-status page names the two preliminary injunctions behind the split: a March 19, 2023 order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas enjoining the January 2023 Rule in Idaho and Texas, and an April 12, 2023 order of a North Dakota district court enjoining it in 24 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Applies when: Idaho, Texas and the 24 listed states.EPA, Rule Status and Litigation Update (last updated Sept. 9, 2026), "Background" [1]Show the source text
On March 19, 2023, a district court judge for the Southern District of Texas issued an order preliminarily enjoining in Idaho and Texas the January 2023 Rule. Subsequently, on April 12, 2023, a district court judge in North Dakota issued an order preliminarily enjoining in 24 states the January 2023 Rule ... These states include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.
StatusPROPOSED-rule preamble, footnote 39 (the agencies' own litigation summary): States and business groups challenged the 2023 Rule in three courts. Two district courts (in Texas v. EPA and West Virginia v. EPA) preliminarily enjoined it as to the plaintiff states. The Eastern District of Kentucky dismissed on standing and ripeness grounds. The Sixth Circuit then granted Kentucky and the business plaintiffs an injunction pending appeal, which dissolved when its mandate issued on September 23, 2024 after it vacated and remanded the dismissal (opinion July 29, 2024).
90 FR 52498 (Nov. 20, 2025), preamble footnote 39 [15]Show the source text
States and business groups challenged the 2023 Rule in three courts. Two district courts preliminarily enjoined the 2023 Rule as to the plaintiff-States. ... The Eastern District of Kentucky dismissed on standing and ripeness grounds. ... Subsequently, the Sixth Circuit granted an injunction pending appeal of the Eastern District of Kentucky's order to Kentucky and business plaintiffs, which dissolved when the Sixth Circuit's mandate issued on September 23, 2024, following the Sixth Circuit's ruling vacating and remanding the district court's dismissal.
StatusPROPOSED-rule preamble, footnote 39 (continued): after the Conforming Rule issued, plaintiffs challenging the 2023 Rule amended their complaints to challenge the Amended 2023 Rule and parts of the Conforming Rule and 2023 Rule. The agencies also cite White v. EPA, No. 24-00013 (E.D.N.C.) and No. 24-1635 (4th Cir.). As of the proposal's signature date 'this ongoing litigation is in abeyance.' Footnote 40 points to EPA's Rule Status and Litigation Update page for the latest status.
90 FR 52498 (Nov. 20, 2025), preamble footnotes 39-40 [15]Show the source text
After the agencies issued the Conforming Rule, plaintiffs challenging the 2023 Rule amended their complaints to challenge the Amended 2023 Rule and certain aspects of the Conforming Rule and 2023 Rule. See also White v. EPA, No. 24-00013 (E.D.N.C.); White v. EPA, No. 24-1635 (4th Cir.). As of the signature date of this proposed rule, this ongoing litigation is in abeyance. ... The latest information on the status of this litigation can be found on the EPA's Rule Status and Litigation Update web page
StatusPROPOSED (not in effect): EPA's rule-status page (last updated September 9, 2026) reports that on September 9, 2026 EPA and the Army published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking for the 'Updated Definition of "Waters of the United States"', supplementing their November 2025 proposal. The page does not report any court ruling on either proposal.
EPA, Rule Status and Litigation Update (last updated Sept. 9, 2026) [1]Show the source text
On September 9, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Army published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking for the Updated Definition of "Waters of the United States." The notice supplements the agencies' November 2025 proposal.
On March 19, 2023 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas enjoined EPA and the Army from implementing or enforcing the January 2023 Rule within Texas and Idaho "pending further order of this court," and denied the trade associations' request for a nationwide injunction. The court found the States had satisfied each preliminary-injunction factor but the associations had not shown irreparable harm, and said two aspects of the rule made the plaintiffs "particularly likely to succeed on the merits": its significant-nexus test, and its categorical extension of federal jurisdiction over all interstate waters regardless of navigability. [4]
The agencies' Fifth Circuit appeal (No. 23-40306) was dismissed as of Oct. 6, 2023 on their own motion, so the injunction was not reviewed on appeal. On Feb. 4, 2025 the district court granted the defendants' unopposed motion to stay the case, stayed all deadlines and proceedings, and ordered the defendants to submit status reports every 60 days; the order does not mention or modify the March 19, 2023 injunction. [6][8]
The appeal-dismissal order and the stay order were read from repository copies of the court records, and the docket from a RECAP (CourtListener) copy. On that docket copy (last known filing Aug. 10, 2026) the most recent entries are a status report filed July 31, 2026, a motion to withdraw counsel (Aug. 7, 2026) and an Aug. 10, 2026 order on that motion; federal status reports were also filed Jan. 30 and March 31, 2026. No entry lifting the stay or the injunction appears. [6][8][9]
StatusTexas v. EPA docket (RECAP copy of PACER docket, last updated Aug. 10, 2026): the most recent entries located are a status report filed July 31, 2026 (Dkt. 154; filer and text not shown), a motion to withdraw counsel (Aug. 7, 2026) and an Aug. 10, 2026 order on that motion; the docket's last known filing is Aug. 10, 2026. Federal status reports were also filed Jan. 30, 2026 and Mar. 31, 2026. No docket entry lifting the stay or the injunction appears.
Docket, State of Texas v. U.S. EPA, No. 3:23-cv-00017 (S.D. Tex.), Dkt. 149-156 [9]Show the source text
Date of Last Known Filing: Aug. 10, 2026 ... Aug 10, 2026 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney 156 Aug 10, 2026 Main Document Order ... 155 Aug 7, 2026 Main Document Withdraw as Attorney ... 154 Jul 31, 2026 Main Document Status Report ... 152 Mar 31, 2026 STATUS REPORT by Michael L Connor ... 149 Jan 30, 2026 STATUS REPORT by Michael L Connor
State of Texas, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (consolidated with American Farm Bureau Federation, et al. v. EPA, No. 3:23-cv-20)
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Galveston Division), Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown · March 19, 2023 · No. 3:23-cv-17 (S.D. Tex.); 662 F. Supp. 3d 739 (S.D. Tex. 2023) [4]
Holding: Preliminary injunction against the January 2023 WOTUS rule within Texas and Idaho, pending further order; nationwide injunction denied.
Why it matters for a pond: Reason the pre-2015 regime (read with Sackett) is applied in Texas and Idaho instead of the Amended 2023 Rule.
Later history: Government's Fifth Circuit appeal (No. 23-40306) dismissed on its own motion Oct. 6, 2023; case stayed Feb. 4, 2025; still stayed with status reports as of Aug. 2026.
Show the source text
And the court has determined that they are not entitled to any injunctive relief apart from that granted the States. Accordingly, the court limits its injunction to the states of Texas and Idaho. ... and denies the Associations' request for a nationwide injunction, 20 Dkt. 15. Therefore, within the states of Texas and Idaho, the court enjoins the defendants from implementing or enforcing the final rule entitled "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States,'" 88 Fed. Reg. 3004 (Jan. 18, 2023), pending further order of this court.
State of Texas, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (consolidated with American Farm Bureau Federation, et al. v. EPA, No. 3:23-cv-20)
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Galveston Division), Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown · March 19, 2023 · No. 3:23-cv-17 (S.D. Tex.); 662 F. Supp. 3d 739 (S.D. Tex. 2023) [4]
Holding: States likely to succeed because of the 2023 Rule's significant-nexus test and its interstate-waters category.
Why it matters for a pond: The significant-nexus standard was later rejected in Sackett and removed by the Conforming Rule. Interstate waters remain a category in the Amended 2023 Rule (40 CFR 120.2(a)(1)(iii)); the November 2025 proposal would remove that category (proposed only, not in effect).
Later history: Preliminary-injunction ruling only; no final merits judgment appears on the RECAP docket through Aug. 10, 2026.
Show the source text
The court finds that the States have satisfied each factor, but the Associations have not shown irreparable harm. ... two aspects of the 2023 Rule make the plaintiffs particularly likely to succeed on the merits—first, the Rule's significant-nexus test, and second, the Rule's categorical extension of federal jurisdiction over all interstate waters, regardless of navigability.
State of Texas, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Clerk, entered at the direction of the court) · October 6, 2023 · No. 23-40306 (5th Cir.) [6]
Holding: Agencies' appeal of the Texas/Idaho preliminary injunction dismissed on the appellants' own motion under FRAP 42(b).
Why it matters for a pond: The Texas/Idaho injunction remains in place; no appellate ruling narrowed it.
Later history: None.
Show the source text
Defendants —Appellants. ... Under Feb. R. App. P. 42(B), the appeal is dismissed as of October 06, 2023, pursuant to appellants' motion.
State of Texas, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (consolidated with American Farm Bureau Federation, et al. v. EPA, No. 3:23-cv-20)
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Galveston Division), Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown · February 4, 2025 · No. 3:23-cv-17 (S.D. Tex.), Dkt. 136 [8]
Holding: Case stayed; status reports every 60 days.
Why it matters for a pond: No merits decision is coming while the stay lasts, so the Texas/Idaho injunction (and the pre-2015 regime there) continues.
Later history: Status reports filed through at least July 31, 2026; latest docket entry located is an Aug. 10, 2026 order on counsel withdrawal.
Show the source text
Before the court is the defendants' unopposed motion to stay the case. Dkt. 135. The court grants the motion. All deadlines and proceedings are stayed. The defendants are ordered to submit status reports every 60 days from the date of this order.
West Virginia v. EPA: the 24-state injunction
On April 12, 2023 the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota enjoined EPA and the Army from implementing or enforcing the January 2023 Rule as to the 24 plaintiff States. Following the Texas court, it limited the injunction to those states, noting that more than 20 states had not challenged the rule and that the plaintiffs had not requested nationwide application. [5]
EPA lists the 24 states as Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming. [1]
According to a repository (RECAP/CourtListener) copy of the court's PACER docket, the agencies' interlocutory appeal to the Eighth Circuit (No. 23-2411) was dismissed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), with the mandate entered on the district docket Oct. 10, 2023, so the injunction was not reviewed on appeal. The same docket copy shows an order granting a motion to stay entered Feb. 18, 2025. Its most recent entries are a federal status report (March 27, 2026), a March 30, 2026 order directing the parties to file a joint status report by May 29, 2026, and an April 23, 2026 order on a counsel-withdrawal motion (the last known filing). The May 29, 2026 deadline has passed, and the docket copy (last updated May 15, 2026; rechecked Sept. 29, 2026) does not show whether the joint status report was filed. No entry lifting the stay or the injunction appears. [7][10]
StatusWest Virginia v. EPA docket (RECAP copy of PACER docket, last updated May 15, 2026; rechecked September 29, 2026): the district judge's order granting the motion to stay was entered February 18, 2025. The most recent entries located are a federal status report filed March 27, 2026, a March 30, 2026 magistrate-judge order directing the parties to file a joint status report by May 29, 2026, and an April 23, 2026 order on a counsel-withdrawal motion; the docket's last known filing is April 23, 2026. The May 29, 2026 deadline has passed, and the docket copy does not show whether the joint status report was filed. No entry lifting the stay or the injunction appears.
Docket, West Virginia v. U.S. EPA, No. 3:23-cv-00032 (D.N.D.), entries 250-300 [10]Show the source text
Last Updated: May 15, 2026 ... Date of Last Known Filing: April 23, 2026 ... 300 Apr 23, 2026 (Text Only) ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alice R. Senechal granting 299 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. ... (Text Only) STATUS REPORT ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alice R. Senechal. The parties shall file a joint Status Report by 5/29/2026. (BBG) (Entered: 03/30/2026) ... STATUS REPORT by Michael L. Connor ... U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Shea, Sonya) (Entered: 03/27/2026) ... ORDER by Judge Daniel L. Hovland granting 250 Motion to Stay (MM) (Entered: 02/18/2025)
State of West Virginia, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, Judge Daniel L. Hovland · April 12, 2023 · No. 3:23-cv-32 (D.N.D.); 669 F. Supp. 3d 781 (D.N.D. 2023) [5]
Holding: Preliminary injunction against the January 2023 WOTUS rule in the 24 plaintiff states; nationwide relief denied.
Why it matters for a pond: Reason the pre-2015 regime (read with Sackett) is applied in those 24 states.
Later history: Agencies' Eighth Circuit appeal (No. 23-2411) dismissed under FRAP 42(b), mandate Oct. 10, 2023; case stayed Feb. 18, 2025; status reports continuing in 2026.
Show the source text
Currently, there are more than 20 states that have not challenged the new 2023 Rule to date. The record before the Court is not sufficiently complete to justify a broader application. Further, the Plaintiffs have not requested nationwide application. Accordingly, this Court limits this injunction to the 24 States named as plaintiffs in this litigation. ... In sum, as to the 24 States who are parties to this lawsuit, the Court enjoins the Defendants from implementing or enforcing the 2023 Rule entitled "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United ... States,'" 88 Fed. Reg. 3004 (Jan. 18, 2023).
State of West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · October 10, 2023 · No. 23-2411 (8th Cir.) [7]
Holding: Agencies' interlocutory appeal of the 24-state preliminary injunction dismissed under FRAP 42(b).
Why it matters for a pond: The 24-state injunction remains in place; no appellate ruling narrowed it.
Later history: None.
Show the source text
MANDATE of USCA as to 141 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal ... (Entered: 10/10/2023) ... USCA JUDGMENT as to 141 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal ... Appeal is dismissed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 42(b). ... USCA Case Number 23-2411 for 141 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. ... NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to 131 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Kentucky v. EPA: Amended 2023 Rule operative in Kentucky as of September 2024
On March 31, 2023 the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied without prejudice the preliminary-injunction motions of Kentucky and the private-sector plaintiffs and dismissed the claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, holding them not ripe and the claimed injuries too speculative for standing. On May 9, 2023 it denied the plaintiffs' motions for an emergency injunction pending appeal, again finding the claims not ripe and adding that its ruling "is not, and never has been, that the Plaintiffs will never have standing." [17][18]
On May 10, 2023 the Sixth Circuit granted Kentucky and the business plaintiffs relief pending appeal, which EPA's Rule Status page calls a stay and the agencies' November 2025 proposal calls an injunction. EPA says that while it was in effect, the agencies applied the pre-2015 regime in Kentucky and for the plaintiffs-appellants and their members. On July 29, 2024 the Sixth Circuit held the district court erred by dismissing the suit on its own motion (sua sponte) and without notice for lack of standing, vacated that ruling, and remanded for further consideration and to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaints. [1][15][19]
The Sixth Circuit added that the agencies' Sackett-driven amendment of the rule "alleviated the vast majority of Plaintiffs' alleged harms and put the viability of this suit into question." Its mandate issued Sept. 23, 2024, lifting its earlier order, and EPA says that as of that date the Amended 2023 Rule is operative in Kentucky and for the plaintiffs-appellants and their members, except in jurisdictions where it is preliminarily enjoined under court orders in other litigation. [1][19]
On remand, the agencies' November 2025 proposal recounts, the business plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal (Oct. 4, 2024) and Kentucky amended its complaint (Nov. 8, 2024). A repository (RECAP/CourtListener) copy of the district docket shows the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims without prejudice on Oct. 8, 2024, then amended that order on Oct. 11, 2024 so that Kentucky's claims remained before it. Kentucky moved for summary judgment on Jan. 10, 2025, and on April 3, 2025 the court stayed the action, including all pending deadlines, until Oct. 14, 2025. That docket copy was last updated June 9, 2025 (last known filing May 31, 2025), so it does not show whether the stay was extended or lifted at or after Oct. 14, 2025. The agencies' November 2025 proposal, whose litigation summary includes this case, says the ongoing litigation was in abeyance as of the proposal's signature date. [15][20]
StatusPROPOSED-rule preamble, footnote 39 (continued): after the Sixth Circuit remand, Kentucky amended its complaint (E.D. Ky. ECF No. 78, Nov. 8, 2024) and the business plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal (ECF No. 73, Oct. 4, 2024).
Applies when: Kentucky.90 FR 52498 (Nov. 20, 2025), preamble footnote 39 [15]Show the source text
Kentucky then amended its complaint, and the business plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. Amended Complaint, Kentucky v. EPA, No. 3:23-cv-7, ECF No. 78 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 8, 2024); Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Kentucky v. EPA, No. 3:23-cv-7, ECF No. 73 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 4, 2024).
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (with member case Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. EPA, No. 3:23-cv-8)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Frankfort), Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove · March 31, 2023 · No. 3:23-cv-00007-GFVT (E.D. Ky.) [17]
Holding: Preliminary injunctions denied; case dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing/ripeness.
Why it matters for a pond: Kentucky initially had no injunction; the Sixth Circuit later granted one pending appeal (May 10, 2023 to Sept. 23, 2024).
Later history: Emergency injunction pending appeal denied May 9, 2023; Sixth Circuit stay pending appeal May 10, 2023; dismissal vacated and remanded July 29, 2024.
Show the source text
Neither the Commonwealth nor the private-sector plaintiffs' claims are ripe for review. ... the claimed financial and sovereignty injuries are too speculative to constitute imminent injuries in fact. ... 1. The Commonwealth's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [R. 10] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ... 3. The claims in this matter are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (with member case Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. EPA, No. 3:23-cv-8)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Frankfort), Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove · May 9, 2023 · No. 3:23-cv-00007-GFVT (E.D. Ky.) [18]
Why it matters for a pond: The next day (May 10, 2023) the Sixth Circuit granted a stay pending appeal, bringing the pre-2015 regime to Kentucky until Sept. 23, 2024.
Later history: See Sixth Circuit claims.
Show the source text
To be clear, the Court's ruling is not, and never has been, that the Plaintiffs will never have standing. It is simply that they fail to establish that the "controversy" has matured to a point where jurisdiction exists. ... the Plaintiffs' Motions for Emergency Injunction pending appeal [R. 52; R. 53] are DENIED.
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. EPA; Kentucky Chamber of Commerce v. EPA
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 10, 2023 · Nos. 23-5343, 23-5345 (6th Cir.) [1]
Holding: Stay (injunction) pending appeal granted May 10, 2023.
Why it matters for a pond: Explains why the pre-2015 regime applied in Kentucky from May 2023 to September 2024 and the Amended 2023 Rule applies there now.
Later history: Sixth Circuit opinion July 29, 2024 vacated and remanded the dismissal; mandate Sept. 23, 2024; remand proceedings stayed in 2025 (see later claims).
Show the source text
On May 10, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an order granting the motions of Kentucky and plaintiffs-appellants for a stay pending appeal ... While the stay was in effect, the agencies interpreted "waters of the United States" consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime in Kentucky and for the plaintiffs-appellants and their members in this litigation (including Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Associated General Contractors of Kentucky, Home Builders Association of Kentucky, Portland Cement Association, and Georgia Chamber of Commerce).
Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Gibbons, Kethledge, Davis, JJ.) · July 29, 2024 · Nos. 23-5343/5345 (6th Cir. 2024) (unpublished) [19]
Holding: Sua sponte dismissal without notice vacated; remanded to allow amendment.
Why it matters for a pond: The mandate (Sept. 23, 2024) ended the injunction pending appeal, so the Amended 2023 Rule became operative in Kentucky.
Later history: Business plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed (Oct. 2024); Kentucky filed amended complaint Nov. 8, 2024; district case stayed from Feb. 10, 2025.
Show the source text
The district court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion; and, shortly afterwards, dismissed the suit, sua sponte and without notice, for want of standing. But in doing so, the district court erred. ... We therefore vacate the district court's ruling and remand the matter for further consideration and to allow Plaintiffs to amend their complaint(s).
Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Gibbons, Kethledge, Davis, JJ.) · July 29, 2024 · Nos. 23-5343/5345 (6th Cir. 2024) (unpublished) [19]
Holding: Vacated and remanded (see claim 027); in an added note, the court said the Sackett-driven amendment alleviated most alleged harms and directed plaintiffs on remand to give notice of a new suit, an amended complaint, or dismissal.
Why it matters for a pond: The mandate (Sept. 23, 2024) ended the injunction pending appeal, so the Amended 2023 Rule became operative in Kentucky.
Later history: Business plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed (Oct. 2024); Kentucky filed amended complaint Nov. 8, 2024; district case stayed from Feb. 10, 2025.
Show the source text
During the pendency of this appeal, the Agencies amended the Rule at issue in this case. The amendment, borne out of the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), alleviated the vast majority of Plaintiffs' alleged harms and put the viability of this suit into question. On remand, Plaintiffs must file notice of their intent to file a new suit, amend their present complaint, or dispense with this litigation altogether.
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. EPA; Kentucky Chamber of Commerce v. EPA
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · September 23, 2024 · Nos. 23-5343, 23-5345 (6th Cir.) [1]
Holding: Mandate issued September 23, 2024, lifting the stay pending appeal.
Why it matters for a pond: Explains why the pre-2015 regime applied in Kentucky from May 2023 to September 2024 and the Amended 2023 Rule applies there now.
Later history: Sixth Circuit opinion July 29, 2024 vacated and remanded the dismissal; mandate Sept. 23, 2024; remand proceedings stayed in 2025 (see later claims).
Show the source text
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. EPA (No. 23-5343) and Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. EPA (No. 23-5345). ... On September 23, 2024, the Sixth Circuit issued a mandate lifting its stay order, and as of that date, the amended 2023 rule is operative in Kentucky and for the plaintiffs-appellants and their members (except in jurisdictions where the rule is preliminary enjoined pursuant to court orders issued in other litigation).
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (with member case Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. EPA, No. 3:23-cv-8)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Frankfort), Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove · October 11, 2024 · No. 3:23-cv-00007-GFVT (E.D. Ky.) [20]
Holding: Dismissal amended so the claims asserted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky remained before the court; business plaintiffs out of the case.
Why it matters for a pond: After the October 2024 orders only the Commonwealth of Kentucky's claims remained in this case; the case's status after the docket copy's last known filing (May 31, 2025) is not confirmed. EPA's rule-status page (last updated September 9, 2026) says the Amended 2023 Rule is operative in Kentucky.
Later history: Stayed Feb. 10, 2025 and again Apr. 3, 2025 until Oct. 14, 2025.
Show the source text
MOTION for Summary Judgment by Commonwealth of Kentucky ... AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Commonwealth of Kentucky. ... The Order dismissing all Plaintiffs R. 74 is hereby AMENDED to reflect that the claims asserted by Plaf Commonwealth of Kentucky remain before the Court. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 10/11/2024. ... ORDER: 1. Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ... This matter is STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. Signed by Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove on 10/8/2024.
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (with member case Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. EPA, No. 3:23-cv-8)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Frankfort), Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove · April 3, 2025 · No. 3:23-cv-00007-GFVT (E.D. Ky.) [20]
Holding: Action stayed until October 14, 2025 (that date has passed).
Why it matters for a pond: Kentucky's challenge was stayed until October 14, 2025, and the agencies' November 2025 proposed rule described the litigation as in abeyance as of the proposal's signature date; its status after that is not confirmed. EPA's rule-status page (last updated September 9, 2026) says the Amended 2023 Rule is operative in Kentucky.
Later history: The agencies' November 2025 proposed rule (90 FR 52498) says the litigation was in abeyance as of the proposal's signature date; the RECAP docket (last updated June 9, 2025; rechecked Sept. 29, 2026) shows no later entries, and later E.D. Ky. entries were not located.
Show the source text
Last Updated: June 9, 2025 ... Date of Last Known Filing: May 31, 2025 ... ORDER: 1. The Clerk SHALL convert the Joint Status Report [R. 92 ] to a Joint Motion to Stay; 2. Parties' Joint Motion to Stay [R. 92 ] is GRANTED; 3. This action, including all pending deadlines, shall be STAYED until October 14, 2025; and 4. The Parties SHALL file a joint status report within 14 days before the end of the abeyance period. Signed by Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove on 4/3/2025. ... The Defendants' Motion to Stay [R. 89 ] is GRANTED; 2. This action ... shall be STAYED for 60 days
White v. EPA: a North Carolina landowner's challenge
As the district court described the background, Robert White owns properties in Pasquotank, Camden and Currituck Counties, North Carolina, parts of which are low-lying; in January 2023 the United States brought a civil Clean Water Act enforcement action alleging he discharged pollutants into jurisdictional waters without a permit by building and filling linear bulkheads in open water and wetlands. White sued the Corps and EPA under the Administrative Procedure Act to set aside the Amended 2023 Rule, claiming its adjacent-wetland definition omits a key element of Sackett's test. [11]
On June 18, 2024 the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied his motion to preliminarily enjoin the agencies from enforcing the Amended 2023 Rule against him and his properties, because he was unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court rejected his reading that Sackett requires both a continuous surface connection and, separately, practical indistinguishability, reasoning that a continuous surface connection is what "renders the wetland practically indistinguishable from the jurisdictional water to which it is connected." [11]
The district court stayed the case for 75 days by an order filed Jan. 30, 2025, and entered orders on motions to continue the abeyance on April 16, 2025, Aug. 25, 2025, Dec. 15, 2025, June 10, 2026 and Sept. 11, 2026. White's motion for summary judgment and cross-motions by the federal defendants and by the National Wildlife Federation and North Carolina Wildlife Federation were submitted to the district judge on Nov. 25, 2024, and no ruling on them appears on the docket. The Sept. 11, 2026 order stayed the case "for an additional 90 days" and directed the defendants to file a status report when the stay expires. [12][21][22]
On appeal (Fourth Circuit No. 24-1635), the court denied White's motion for injunctive relief pending appeal on Oct. 9, 2024, placed the appeal in abeyance on the federal appellees' motion on Feb. 5, 2025, and on June 18, 2026 extended the abeyance until Sept. 8, 2026, a date that has passed; a further order was filed Sept. 10, 2026, but its text is not in the free RECAP archive (it is offered only through PACER) and was not read, so the appeal's status since then is not confirmed. The White court orders described here were read from repository copies of the court records, and the other docket events from RECAP (CourtListener) copies of the dockets. [11][12][13][14]
StatusWhite v. EPA, E.D.N.C. docket (RECAP copy, last updated Sept. 11, 2026): cross-motions for summary judgment (White's motion, Doc. 57; the National Wildlife Federation/North Carolina Wildlife Federation cross-motion, Doc. 59; the federal cross-motion, Doc. 61) were submitted to the district judge on November 25, 2024, and no ruling on them appears on the docket. Since the January 2025 stay the court has entered orders on motions to continue the abeyance on April 16, 2025, August 25, 2025, December 15, 2025, June 10, 2026 and September 11, 2026; the docket's last known filing is September 11, 2026.
Docket, White v. U.S. EPA, No. 2:24-cv-00013 (E.D.N.C.), entries 57-94 [22]Show the source text
Date of Last Known Filing: Sept. 11, 2026 ... 94 Sep 11, 2026 Main Document Order on Motion to Continue ... 90 Jun 10, 2026 Main Document Order on Motion to Continue ... 83 Dec 15, 2025 Main Document Order on Motion to Continue ... 81 Aug 25, 2025 Main Document Order on Motion to Continue ... 74 Apr 16, 2025 Main Document Order on Motion to Continue ... Nov 25, 2024 Motion Submitted to District Judge Terrence W. Boyle regarding 61 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment, 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 59 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment
StatusWhite v. EPA, Fourth Circuit No. 24-1635 (RECAP copy of the court of appeals docket): on October 9, 2024 the Fourth Circuit denied White's motion for injunctive relief pending appeal; White filed his reply brief on January 17, 2025; on February 5, 2025 the court granted the federal appellees' motion to place the appeal in abeyance; and on April 22, 2025 it placed the case in abeyance until August 13, 2025.
Docket, Robert White v. EPA, No. 24-1635 (4th Cir.), entries 18, 26, 38, 39, 41, 44 [14]Show the source text
COURT ORDER filed granting Motion for abeyance [42] Case 24-1635 placed in abeyance until August 13, 2025. ... [Entered: 04/22/2025 10:28 AM] ... COURT ORDER filed granting Motion for abeyance [39] ... [Entered: 02/05/2025 04:24 PM] ... MOTION by Michael L. Connor, EPA, Michael S. Regan ... to place case in abeyance ... BRIEF by Robert D. White. Type of Brief: REPLY ... [Entered: 01/17/2025 04:46 PM] ... COURT ORDER filed denying motion for injunctive relief pending appeal [18]. ... [Entered: 10/09/2024 10:42 AM] ... MOTION by Robert D. White for injunctive relief pending appeal.
StatusWhite v. EPA, Fourth Circuit docket (RECAP copy): the federal appellees moved on June 9, 2026 to continue the abeyance, the court granted that motion on June 18, 2026, and a further 'Court order' was filed September 10, 2026 (the docket's last known filing). Earlier, on August 14, 2025, the court had placed the case in abeyance until December 11, 2025.
Docket, Robert White v. EPA, No. 24-1635 (4th Cir.), entries 49-56 [14]Show the source text
Date of Last Known Filing: Sept. 10, 2026 ... 56 Sep 10, 2026 Main Document Court order filed ... 54 Jun 18, 2026 COURT ORDER filed granting Motion to extend abeyance [53]. ... 53 Jun 9, 2026 MOTION by Michael L. Connor ... COURT ORDER filed granting Motion for abeyance [48]. Case 24-1635 placed in abeyance until December 11, 2025.
Robert D. White v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (National Wildlife Federation and North Carolina Wildlife Federation, intervenor-defendants)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Northern Division) · June 18, 2024 · No. 2:24-cv-00013 (E.D.N.C.); 737 F. Supp. 3d 310 (E.D.N.C. 2024) [11]
Holding: (Background facts; see next claim for the ruling.)
Why it matters for a pond: Background to the challenge; the related federal enforcement action against the same landowner is United States v. White (E.D.N.C.).
Later history: See following claims.
Show the source text
Plaintiff Robert White owns properties in Pasquotank, Camden, and Currituck Counties. Parts of his properties are low-lying and some border the Pasquotank River, Big Flatty Creek, and other bodies of water that feed into the Albemarle Sound. ... In January 2023 , the EPA, acting through the United States, brought a civil enforcement action ... White discharged pollutants into jurisdictional waters without a permit when he constructed and filled linear bulkheads in open water and wetlands, both marsh and forested, at sites abutting the Pasquotank River and Big Flatty Creek.
Robert D. White v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (National Wildlife Federation and North Carolina Wildlife Federation, intervenor-defendants)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Northern Division) · June 18, 2024 · No. 2:24-cv-00013 (E.D.N.C.); 737 F. Supp. 3d 310 (E.D.N.C. 2024) [11]
Holding: Motion to preliminarily enjoin the agencies from enforcing the Amended 2023 Rule against White and his properties denied; White unlikely to succeed on the merits.
Why it matters for a pond: No injunction: the Amended 2023 Rule continues to apply in North Carolina, including to this plaintiff.
Later history: Appeal No. 24-1635 (4th Cir.) placed in abeyance Feb. 5, 2025 and held in abeyance through at least Sept. 8, 2026 (a date that has passed); a further order filed Sept. 10, 2026 is not in the free RECAP archive and was not read, so the appeal's status since then is not confirmed. District case stayed since Jan. 2025, most recently for an additional 90 days by order filed Sept. 11, 2026.
Show the source text
Plaintiff Robert White claims that the Corps and the EPA (the Agencies) did not faithfully implement Sackett's test for adjacent wetlands because their definition omits a key element. He sued the Corps and the EPA under the Administrative Procedure Act ... set aside the allegedly unlawful Amended Rule. He now moves to preliminarily enjoin the Corps and the EPA from enforcing the Amended Rule against him and his properties. [DE 10]. Because White is unlikely to succeed on the merits, the Court denies his motion for preliminary injunction.
Robert D. White v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (National Wildlife Federation and North Carolina Wildlife Federation, intervenor-defendants)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Northern Division) · June 18, 2024 · No. 2:24-cv-00013 (E.D.N.C.); 737 F. Supp. 3d 310 (E.D.N.C. 2024) [11]
Holding: At the preliminary-injunction stage (likelihood of success): Sackett's continuous-surface-connection requirement is what makes a wetland practically indistinguishable; there is no separate indistinguishability element.
Why it matters for a pond: Bears on whether a wet area near a planned pond is a jurisdictional adjacent wetland where the Amended 2023 Rule applies; a district-court preliminary ruling, not a final merits decision. Commenters' reliance on it is summarized in the agencies' Sept. 2026 supplemental proposal (claim 041).
Later history: Appeal No. 24-1635 (4th Cir.) held in abeyance through at least Sept. 8, 2026 (a date that has passed); a further order filed Sept. 10, 2026 is not in the free RECAP archive and was not read, so the appeal's status since then is not confirmed.
Show the source text
The Court cannot square White' s view of what Sackett requires of a wetland to be "adjacent" with what Sackett actually requires. ... Put another way, a wetland with a continuous surface connection is a "water[] of the United States" because that continuous surface connection renders the wetland practically indistinguishable from the jurisdictional water to which it is connected. ... No lower court has read Sackett to mandate a wetland have both a continuous surface connection to a jurisdictional water and practically indistinguishable in order to be "adjacent."
Robert D. White v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (National Wildlife Federation and North Carolina Wildlife Federation, intervenor-defendants)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Northern Division) · January 29, 2025 · No. 2:24-cv-00013 (E.D.N.C.); 737 F. Supp. 3d 310 (E.D.N.C. 2024) [21]
Holding: Case stayed 75 days; hearing on pending motions continued.
Why it matters for a pond: Start of the district-court stay; no ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment appears on the RECAP docket through Sept. 11, 2026.
Later history: Stay extended by later orders (Apr. 16, 2025; Aug. 25, 2025; Dec. 15, 2025; June 10, 2026; Sept. 2026).
Show the source text
The motion is not opposed by the Plaintiff, provided that the stay be time-limited and expire alongside a stay in a sister case, United States v. White ... The motion to stay [DE 69] is GRANTED. This case is stayed for 75 days, and the Defendants are DIRECTED to provide the Court with a status report at the expiration of the stay. The hearing scheduled for February 5, 2025, is CONTINUED, and will be reset by notice.
Robert D. White v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (National Wildlife Federation and North Carolina Wildlife Federation, intervenor-defendants)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Northern Division) · September 11, 2026 · No. 2:24-cv-00013 (E.D.N.C.); 737 F. Supp. 3d 310 (E.D.N.C. 2024) [12]
Holding: Stay extended an additional 90 days.
Why it matters for a pond: The district case remains stayed; the order does not say when the additional 90 days began or end, and no merits ruling can issue while it is stayed.
Later history: Defendants to file a status report when the stay expires.
Show the source text
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Status Report and Unopposed Motion to Extend Abeyance. The Court, having considered the motion, and good cause appearing, GRANTS the motion, and it is HEREBY ORDERED that the case is stayed for an additional 90 days. Upon the expiration of the stay, the Defendants are directed to file a status report.
Robert D. White v. U.S. EPA, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 18, 2026 · No. 24-1635 (4th Cir.) [13]
Holding: Abeyance extended until September 8, 2026 (that date has passed).
Why it matters for a pond: The appeal from the preliminary-injunction denial stayed in abeyance through at least September 8, 2026 (that date has passed; a further order filed September 10, 2026 was not read, so the appeal's status since then is not confirmed); the Amended 2023 Rule continues to apply in North Carolina (not among the enjoined states listed by EPA).
Later history: Court order filed Sept. 10, 2026 (Fourth Circuit docket entry 56); its text is not in the free RECAP archive (offered only through PACER) and was not read.
Show the source text
Upon consideration of the federal appellees' unopposed motion to extend the abeyance, the court grants the motion and extends the abeyance until September 8, 2026.
More detail
More detail: 3 more verified statements on the WOTUS lawsuits
StatusPROPOSED-rule preamble (Nov. 20, 2025): The agencies state that the Amended 2023 Rule is the regime currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, and that because of preliminary injunctions in several states they are implementing two regimes as of the proposal's signature date: the Amended 2023 Rule in 24 states, DC and the Territories, and the pre-2015 regime read consistent with Sackett in the other 26 states.
90 FR 52498 (Nov. 20, 2025), preamble section "5. Current Applicable Regulatory Regimes" [15]Show the source text
The Amended 2023 Rule is the regulatory regime that is currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations ... Due to preliminary injunctions of the Amended 2023 Rule in several States, the agencies are implementing two regulatory regimes ... as of the signature date of this proposed rule. ... The EPA and the Army are implementing the Amended 2023 Rule in 24 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Territories. In the other 26 States, the agencies are interpreting ``waters of the United States'' consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime and the Supreme Court's Sackett decision.
PROPOSED (Sept. 9, 2026 supplemental proposal): the agencies say the WOTUS definition 'has been in significant flux': the past eleven years included five rule revisions, a major Supreme Court decision, a memorandum to the field, and 'a constant stream of lower court rulings, injunctions and vacaturs', and that they 'seek to now put an end to such uncertainty'.
Updated Definition of "Waters of the United States" (supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking), 91 FR 57284 (Sept. 9, 2026), FR Doc. 2026-18317, preamble secs. V.B and V.C (reliance-interests discussion) [16]Show the source text
the definition of ``waters of the United States'' has been in significant flux: the past eleven years have included five rule revisions, a major Supreme Court decision, a memorandum to the field, and a constant stream of lower court rulings, injunctions and vacaturs--each modifying the agencies' interpretation of ``waters of the United States.'' The agencies seek to now put an end to such uncertainty
PROPOSED (Sept. 9, 2026 supplemental proposal): in discussing 'continuous surface connection', the agencies summarize commenters who cited White v. EPA, 737 F. Supp. 3d 310 (E.D.N.C. 2024), as reading Sackett to mean the continuous-surface-connection test implements indistinguishability (the White court: 'the use of "so" as a conjunction says it all').
Updated Definition of "Waters of the United States" (supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking), 91 FR 57284 (Sept. 9, 2026), FR Doc. 2026-18317, preamble sec. V.C ("Continuous Surface Connection" Waters) [16]Show the source text
Some commenters cited the White v. U.S. EPA decision as interpreting Sackett to mean that the continuous surface connection test implements the concept of indistinguishability. White v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 737 F. Supp. 3d 310 (E.D.N.C. 2024). ... ``the use of `so' as a conjunction says it all.''
We could not confirm the following from an official source. Ask the agency listed before relying on any of it.
What the most recent status reports in these cases say (Texas v. EPA, filed July 31, 2026, filer not shown on the docket; West Virginia v. EPA, federal reports filed Nov. 24, 2025, Jan. 26, 2026 and March 27, 2026, and the joint status report ordered by May 29, 2026, if it was filed; White v. EPA in North Carolina, filed Sept. 8, 2026). Only the docket descriptions were available, and the West Virginia docket copy (last updated May 15, 2026; rechecked Sept. 29, 2026) does not show whether that joint report was filed. — ask: Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas (Galveston), the District of North Dakota, or the Eastern District of North Carolina (PACER); U.S. DOJ Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Defense Section
The text of the Fourth Circuit order filed Sept. 10, 2026 in White v. EPA (No. 24-1635), after the abeyance ran to Sept. 8, 2026. — ask: Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (PACER), or DOJ Environment and Natural Resources Division, Appellate Section
Anything filed in Kentucky v. EPA (E.D. Ky. No. 3:23-cv-7) after May 31, 2025, including whether the stay was extended or lifted after Oct. 14, 2025, the date until which the April 3, 2025 order stayed the action. — ask: Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Frankfort), via PACER; Kentucky Office of the Attorney General
The text of the North Dakota court's Feb. 18, 2025 order granting the stay in West Virginia v. EPA. — ask: Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota (PACER)
The date of the Eighth Circuit's judgment dismissing the agencies' appeal (No. 23-2411) in West Virginia v. EPA; only the date it was entered on the district docket (Oct. 10, 2023) was seen. — ask: Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (PACER)
The reasons the government has most recently given for keeping these cases stayed, and the plaintiff states' and business groups' positions on the stays. These appear only in the parties' own court filings, which were not used as sources. — ask: U.S. DOJ Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Defense Section; the Attorney General's office of the plaintiff state; EPA Office of Water
Whether any lawsuit has been filed against the November 2025 proposal or the September 2026 supplemental proposal. None was found, and both are proposals, not final rules. — ask: EPA Office of Water (CWAwotus@epa.gov)
Whether any other federal court order, beyond Texas v. EPA, West Virginia v. EPA, the Sixth Circuit's Kentucky order and White v. EPA, currently changes which WOTUS definition applies in a state. EPA's Rule Status page lists only the Texas, North Dakota and Sixth Circuit orders, and a search that found nothing else is not proof that nothing else exists. — ask: EPA Office of Water; the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District regulatory office
This is not legal advice. It is a plain-English summary of official sources, checked September 28, 2026. Laws, permits and agency practice change, and how they apply depends on your exact site. Confirm with the agencies named here, and with a licensed professional engineer for any dam, before you build.
Planning a pond?
Talk it through with a Natural Waterscapes pond expert before you break ground. We can help you size the project so it fits the permits you can realistically get.
