Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, GETTR, Truth Social, Twitter, Youtube
Environmental groups—the Glynn Environmental Coalition and the Center for a Sustainable Coast—along with local Georgia resident Jane Fraser, have submitted a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. They seek review and reversal of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that they argue undermines Clean Water Act enforcement and puts wetlands across the country at risk.
The case, Glynn Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Sea Island Acquisition, LLC, centers on whether a company that obtains a federal permit to fill wetlands—by agreeing to specific conditions and waiving challenges to federal jurisdiction—can later contest whether those wetlands were ever protected under the law, despite the explicit waiver required for the permit.
The Clean Water Act requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fill wetlands classified as “waters of the United States.” The dispute dates to 2019, when plaintiffs alleged that Sea Island Acquisition, LLC misled regulators to secure a permit for filling about 0.49 acres of wetland near the Inn at Sea Island on St. Simons Island, Georgia. The company represented it would build an office building and parking lot, but instead filled the area with sod (grass turf), allegedly violating both the permit terms and the Act.“
This case is fundamentally about preserving the integrity of environmental enforcement,” said Rachael Thompson, Executive Director of the Glynn Environmental Coalition. “The law empowers citizens and nonprofits to step in with lawsuits when federal agencies fall short on enforcement. A developer shouldn’t be able to secure a permit to destroy wetlands and then turn around and claim those wetlands were never federally protected.”
The plaintiffs filed a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act, accusing Sea Island of permit violations and statutory noncompliance. The Eleventh Circuit ultimately upheld dismissal of the case, ruling that the company’s waiver did not bar it from challenging jurisdiction—despite the waiver’s clear wording—and that the wetland did not meet the post-Sackett v. EPA (2023) standard for federal protection (requiring a continuous surface connection making the wetland indistinguishable from a traditional navigable water).
The petition contends this ruling weakens a key congressional mechanism: citizen suits that empower the public and states to serve as “private attorneys general” when official enforcement is inadequate.
“If this decision stands, it provides a blueprint for polluters to exploit the system,” said David Kyler, co-founder and director of the Center for a Sustainable Coast. “It encourages developers to fill wetlands first and argue jurisdiction later—once the damage is done and evidence may be harder to assess.
”The petition highlights the vital functions of wetlands, including safeguarding drinking water supplies, reducing flood risks, protecting coastlines, and supporting wildlife habitat—often for endangered species. It references a 2024 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service report documenting the rapid loss of vegetated wetlands: approximately 670,000 acres disappeared between 2009 and 2019, an area roughly the size of Rhode Island. The Southeast, especially coastal watersheds, saw the most significant declines.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to grant certiorari (review the case) later this year. The petition was docketed in late 2025.
Get the latest on Georgia delivered straight to your mailbox.
