Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 68

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

1 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–454 
_________________ 

MICHAEL SACKETT, ET UX., PETITIONERS v. 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
AGENCY, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[May 25, 2023]

 JUSTICE KAVANAUGH,  with  whom  JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, 
JUSTICE KAGAN, and JUSTICE JACKSON join, concurring in 
the judgment. 

The  Clean  Water  Act  generally  prohibits  dumping
dredged or fill material without a permit into the “waters of 
the  United  States.”  33  U. S. C.  §§1311(a),  1344(a),  1362. 
The “waters of the United States” include wetlands that are 
“adjacent”  to  waters  covered  by  the  Act—for  example, 
wetlands  that  are  adjacent  to  covered  rivers  or  lakes. 
§§1344(g), 1362(7).  The question in this case is whether the
wetlands on the Sacketts’ residential property are adjacent
to covered waters and therefore covered under the Act. 

The Ninth Circuit held that the wetlands on the Sacketts’ 
property  are  covered  by  the  Clean  Water  Act  because,  as
relevant  here,  the  wetlands  have  a  “significant  nexus”  to
covered  waters  nearby.    8  F.  4th  1075,  1093  (2021).    The 
Court today reverses the Ninth Circuit’s judgment. 

I agree with the Court’s reversal of the Ninth Circuit.  In 
particular, I agree with the Court’s decision not to adopt the 
“significant nexus” test for determining whether a wetland 
is  covered  under  the  Act.  And  I  agree  with  the  Court’s 
bottom-line  judgment  that  the  wetlands  on  the  Sacketts’