Was the Second Circuit correct to uphold Clean Water Act authority over wetlands that are not 'as a practical matter indistinguishable' from covered waters?

Petitioner Jeffrey Andrews resides on his family farm in Connecticut . His farm contains a short reach of an unnamed tributary to the Farm River, but no portion of the farm has a continuous surface water connection to that tributary or to the Farm River . In 20 20, the United States —acting on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency —brought an enforcement action alleging that Mr. Andrews ’ earthmoving projects to improve his farm disturbed wetlands that qualify as “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act. In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency , 598 U.S. 651 (2023), this Court held that EPA may only regulate those wetlands that are “as a practical matter indistinguishable ” from covered waters . The Second Circuit nevertheless upheld EPA’s authority over Mr. Andrews’ farm by omitting Sackett ’s requirement , and by holding that, even after Sackett , EPA may regulat e wetlands lacking a continuous surface water connection to covered waters. The question presented is: Was the Second Circuit correct to uphold Clean Water Act authority over wetlands that are not “as a practical matter indistinguishable ” from covered waters?