Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 37

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

3 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

sovereignty was transferred to each of the 13 fully sovereign
States.  See Martin v. Lessee of Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, 410 
(1842)  (“[W]hen  the  Revolution  took  place,  the  people  of 
each state became themselves sovereign; and in that char-
acter hold the absolute right to all their navigable waters 
and the soils under them for their own common use, subject 
only to the rights since surrendered by the Constitution to 
the  general  government”).    Thus,  today,  States  enjoy  pri-
mary  sovereignty  over  their  waters,  including  navigable 
waters—stemming either from their status as independent
sovereigns following Independence, ibid., or their later ad-
mission to the Union on an equal footing with the original 
States,  see  Lessee  of  Pollard  v.  Hagan,  3  How.  212,  230 
(1845) (“The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under 
them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United
States, but were reserved to the states respectively. . . . The 
new states have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdic-
tion  over  this  subject  as  the  original  states”);  see  also  M.
Starr,  Navigable  Waters  of  the  United  States—State  and
National  Control,  35  Harv.  L. Rev.  154,  169–170  (1921).
The Federal Government therefore possesses no authority 
over navigable waters except that granted by the Constitu-
tion. 

The Federal Government’s authority over certain naviga-
ble waters is granted and limited by the Commerce Clause,
which grants Congress power to “regulate Commerce with
foreign  Nations,  and  among  the  several  States,  and  with 
the Indian Tribes.”  Art. I, §8, cl. 3.  From the beginning, it
was understood that “[t]he power to regulate commerce, in-
cludes the power to regulate navigation,” but only “as con-
nected with the commerce with foreign nations, and among 
the states.”  United States v. Coombs, 12 Pet. 72, 78 (1838) 
(Story,  J.,  for  the  Court);  accord,  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9 
Wheat.  1,  190  (1824)  (“All  America  understands  . . .  the 
word ‘commerce,’ to comprehend navigation.  It was so un-