South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 14, 2004 Decided March 23, 2004
Full case name	South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe
Docket no.	02-626
Citations	541 U.S. 95 (more) 124 S. Ct. 1537; 158 L. Ed. 2d 264
Case history
Prior	280 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 2002)
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority	O’Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer (in full); Scalia (Parts I and II–A)
Concur/dissent	Scalia
Laws applied
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.

South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U.S. 95 (2004), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the application of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) of the Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further determination to resolve the question over the validity of the distinction between the two bodies of water at issue (a canal and an undeveloped wetland) and the Government's broader "unitary waters" argument that all water bodies that are "navigable waters" under the Clean Water Act should be considered "unitarily" for purposes of NPDES permitting.^[1]