Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 28

22 

SACKETT v. EPA 

Opinion of the Court 

In sum, we hold that the CWA extends to only those wet-
lands that are “as a practical matter indistinguishable from
waters  of  the  United  States.”    Rapanos,  547  U. S.,  at  755 
(plurality  opinion)  (emphasis  deleted).    This  requires  the
party  asserting  jurisdiction  over  adjacent  wetlands  to  es-
tablish “first, that the adjacent [body of water constitutes] 
. . . ‘water[s] of the United States,’ (i.e., a relatively perma-
nent body of water connected to traditional interstate nav-
igable waters); and second, that the wetland has a continu-
ous surface connection with that water, making it difficult
to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ be-
gins.”  Id., at 742. 

IV 
The EPA resists this reading of §1362(7) and instead asks
us to defer to its understanding of the CWA’s jurisdictional
reach, as set out in its most recent rule defining “the waters
of the United States.”  See 88 Fed. Reg. 3004.  This rule, as 
noted, provides that “adjacent wetlands are covered by the 
Act if they ‘possess a “significant nexus” to’ traditional nav-
igable waters.”  Brief for Respondents 32 (quoting Rapanos, 
547 U. S., at 759 (opinion of Kennedy, J.)); see 88 Fed. Reg. 
3143.  And according to the EPA, wetlands are “adjacent”
when they are “neighboring” to covered waters, even if they
are separated from those waters by dry land.  Brief for Re-
spondents 20; 88 Fed. Reg. 3144. 

A 
For reasons already explained, this interpretation is in-
consistent with the text and structure of the CWA.  Beyond
that, it clashes with “background principles of construction” 

—————— 
landowner  cannot  carve  out  wetlands  from  federal  jurisdiction  by  ille-
gally constructing a barrier on wetlands otherwise covered by the CWA.
Whenever the EPA can exercise its statutory authority to order a bar-
rier’s removal because it violates the Act, see 33 U. S. C. §§1319(a)–(b),
that unlawful barrier poses no bar to its jurisdiction.