Case Explained: INLAND EMPIRE WATERKEEPER, ET AL. V. CORONA CLAY COMPANY

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-05 Docket: 8:18-cv-00333- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but reversed the denial of a motion for a new trial and remanded the case for further proceedings. The panel held that whether a waterway qualifies as a “water of the United States” under the Clean Water Act is a merits question regarding statutory coverage, not a prerequisite for federal subject-matter jurisdiction; therefore, the district court properly retained jurisdiction to hear the citizen suit despite the defendant’s challenge to the creek’s status. However, the court ruled that the Supreme Court’s decision in *Sackett v. EPA*, which narrowed the definition of “waters of the United States” to only relatively permanent bodies with a continuous surface connection to navigable waters, constituted an intervening change in law that warranted relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Because the defendant had previously been foreclosed from challenging the creek’s status due to controlling circuit precedent (*Moses*) and raised the issue at the earliest opportunity after *Sackett*, the panel determined a new trial was necessary to allow the defendant to litigate whether Temescal Creek satisfies the new *Sackett* standard. The case is remanded for the district court to conduct further proceedings to determine if the creek is regulated under the Clean Water Act as defined by *Sackett*. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.