Dr. Sedigheh Zolfaghari dedicated 25 years as a pediatrician to caring for children and newborns. In 2002, she retired to a picturesque five-acre homestead in Lake Worth, Florida, living for more than 20 years on land she thought was all hers. The Army Corps of Engineers declared otherwise, seizing control of nearly half of her property based on claims the Supreme Court has ruled illegal.
Dr. Zolfaghari’s property sits near a canal and includes marshy areas that the Corps determined, prior to her purchase, were regulated wetlands. The property also came with a preexisting homebuilding permit that was subject to conditions tied to the purported wetland claims.
Dr. Zolfaghari built her home and then, in 2008, decided to build a small guest house for her son and properly sought a new permit from the Corps. The agency approved it only if she agreed to maintain the two acres containing supposed wetlands in their natural state—forever. Dr. Zolfaghari complied and built the guest house, accepting what she believed were legitimate government stipulations, effectively handing over 40% of her property to permanent agency control.
The Clean Water Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers power to regulate “navigable waters of the United States.” But the agencies have brazenly sought to expand what counts as navigable waters since the CWA’s enactment in 1972. Decades of confusion and controversy followed in which the agencies stretched their authority to every creek, puddle, and marshy piece of ground in the country.
Then came PLF’s Supreme Court 2023 win in Sackett v. EPA (Sackett II), ending decades of regulatory abuses with final clarity, affirming the CWA covers only navigable waterways as traditionally conceived—oceans, lakes, rivers, and streams, and only wetlands with obvious surface connections to those waters. No connection? No federal authority.
Alerted to the decision by a local agency official in 2024 when she sought another permit to build a horse stable, Dr. Zolfaghari researched Sackett II and discovered nothing on her land qualifies as wetlands subject to federal regulation. Yet the Corps is defying the Supreme Court to perpetually hijack nearly half of her land and saddling her with eternal upkeep—with her own money, regular inspections, and threats of crushing fines and prison.
Dr. Zolfaghari sent a letter to the Corps asking them to take another look at her property considering Sackett II. In February 2025, she received a stunning response: The agency refused her request, claiming her 2009 permit gave it all the power it needed, “regardless of [the land’s] jurisdictional status.”
In other words, because Dr. Zolfaghari agreed to the Corps’ permit demands years ago under the threat of jail time and massive fines, she’s stuck with those conditions forever—even though they were based on government overreach. The agency pressured her into giving up her property rights with an agreement based on claims the Supreme Court affirmed were never permissible —then or now.
Forcing property owners to comply with permits based on false premises and non-existent power violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. Strong-armed into surrendering property rights the Corps had no authority to threaten, Dr. Zolfaghari is fighting back.
Represented free of charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, she’s challenging the Corps’ illegal enforcement of permit terms based on the blatant fabrication that her land contains regulated wetlands. Victory would restore her right to use her land without unlawful government interference and ensure that federal agencies cannot use past overreach to justify continued overreach.
Dr. Zolfaghari’s battle is the latest in a growing slate of PLF cases seeking to ensure Sackett II has the teeth intended by the Supreme Court to keep the executive branch of government where it belongs: within the Constitution’s separation of powers.
What’s At Stake?
- The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Sackett that limited the scope of the Clean Water Act applies to past agency actions as well.
- The government cannot hold property owners to agreements based on regulations the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. Nor can it use illegal regulations to coerce you into giving up your freedom to use your property as you see fit.
