Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 6

6 

SACKETT v. EPA 

Syllabus 

falls short of establishing the sort of “overwhelming evidence of acqui-
escence” necessary to support its argument in the face of Congress’s 
failure  to  amend  §1362(7).    Finally,  the  EPA’s  various  policy  argu-
ments  about  the  ecological  consequences  of  a  narrower  definition  of 
“adjacent” are rejected.  Pp. 25–27. 

8 F. 4th 1075, reversed and remanded. 

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., 
and  THOMAS,  GORSUCH,  and  BARRETT,  JJ.,  joined.    THOMAS,  J.,  filed  a 
concurring  opinion,  in  which  GORSUCH,  J.,  joined.    KAGAN,  J.,  filed  an 
opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, 
JJ., joined.  KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, 
in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., joined.