The case of United States Army Corp of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc. revolved around the issue of whether a jurisdictional determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, stating that property contained "waters of the United States" and thus required permits under the Clean Water Act (CWA), was a final agency action subject to judicial review. The Hawkes Company sought to mine peat from wetland property in Minnesota but were told they needed a permit due to CWA regulations, which they disputed as their land didn't connect with any navigable waterways traditionally regulated by CWA rules. They challenged this decision in court arguing it was an overreach by the Corps and EPA's authority under CWA guidelines. In 2016, The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Hawkes Co., holding that such determinations are indeed final actions because they give rise to direct and appreciable legal consequences; therefore, these decisions can be reviewed immediately in federal court rather than waiting for enforcement proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for United States Army Corp of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc., Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that a jurisdictional determination (JD) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not a final agency action and therefore, cannot be reviewed in court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). She contended that JDs are merely advisory opinions providing information about property boundaries but do not impose any legal obligations or consequences on landowners. They neither determine rights nor obligations, nor trigger any legal consequences as they simply provide an interpretation of statutory terms such as "waters of the United States". Therefore, according to her view, these determinations should not be subject to immediate judicial review until there is concrete action taken based on them.