Whether the Second Circuit's test for determining 'waters of the United States' under the Clean Water Act conflicts with the Supreme Court's interpretation in Sackett v. EPA

No question identified. : To the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Second Circuit: Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.5, Petitioner Jeffrey Andrews respectfully requests an extension of time of 30 days to file his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in this Court up to and including November 21, 2025. JUDGMENT FOR WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT The judgment for which review is sought is United States v. Andrews, No. 241479, 2025 WL 855763 (2d Cir. Mar. 19, 2025) (attached as Exhibit 1). The Second Circuit denied Mr. Andrews’ petition for rehearing on July 24, 2025 (attached as Exhibit 2). The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is currently due on October 22, 2025, per Supreme Court Rule 13.3. This application for an extension of time is filed more than ten days prior to that date. JURISDICTION This case arises under section 309(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b). Specifically, Respondent alleges that Petitioner discharged pollutants into “waters of the United States” without a permit, in violation of Clean Water Act section 301, 33 U.S.C. § 1311. The petition will ask whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit applied a test for determining whether wetlands are “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7), that conflicts with the decision of this Court in Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023). This Court has jurisdiction over a timely filed petition for a writ of certiorari in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). REASONS FOR GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME Petitioner’s undersigned counsel of record requires extra time to file a petition in this case because counsel has only recently entered a representation agreement with Petitioner. Petitioner was previously proceeding pro se. Counsel therefore needs additional time to become familiar with the full record in this case to draft a cogent and compelling petition. Counsel also requires extra time to file a petition in this case due to concurrent demand on his workload. Counsel represents many other clients in cases spanning multiple jurisdictions, with several upcoming briefing deadlines in October. See Iliamna Natives Ltd. v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, No. 3:24cv-00132-SLG (D. Alaska); Skipper v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. 1:21-cv-00094JB-B (S.D. Ala.). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner requests that this Court grant an extension of 30 days, up to and including November 21, 2025, within which to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. DATED: September 22, 2025. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Charles T. Yates PAIGE E. GILLIARD CHARLES T. YATES FRANK D. GARRISON Counsel of Record SEAN RADOMSKI DAMIEN M. SCHIFF Pacific Legal Foundation Pacific Legal Foundation 3100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1000 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1290 Arlington, VA 22201 Sacramento, CA 95814 (202) 888-6881 (916) 419-7111 Counsel for Petitioner CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of this application was served via email and U.S. mail to counsel listed below in accordance with Supreme Court Rules 22.2, 29.3, and 29.4(a): D. John Sauer Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Room 5616 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Telephone: (202) 514-2217 Brian C. Toth Attorney, Appellate Section Environment and Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice PO Box 7415 Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 305-0639 Counsel for Respondent DATED: September 22, 2025. /s/ Charles T. Yates CHARLES T. YATES Counsel of Record Pacific Legal Foundation 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1290 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 419-7111 Counsel for Petitioner EXHIBIT 1 Case: 24-1479, 03/19/2025, DktEntry: 76.1, Page 1 of 6 24-1479 United States v. Andrews UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO ASUMMARY ORDER FILED ON