Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

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

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

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  THOMAS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GORSUCH  joins,

concurring. 

I join the Court’s opinion in full.  The Clean Water Act 
(CWA)  confines  the  Federal  Government’s  jurisdiction  to 
“ ‘navigable waters,’ ” defined as “the waters of the United 
States.”  33 U. S. C. §§1311(a), 1362(7), (12).  And the Court 
correctly holds that the term “waters” reaches “ ‘only those 
relatively  permanent,  standing  or  continuously  flowing 
bodies of water “ ‘forming geographic[al] features’ ” that are
described in ordinary parlance as “streams, oceans, rivers, 
and lakes.” ’ ”  Ante, at 14 (quoting Rapanos v. United States, 
547 U. S. 715, 739 (2006) (plurality opinion)).  It also cor-
rectly holds that for a wetland to fall within this definition, 
it  must  share  a  “ ‘continuous  surface  connection  to  bodies 
that are “waters of the United States” in their own right’ ” 
such that “ ‘there is no clear demarcation between “waters” 
and wetlands.’ ”  Ante, at 21 (quoting Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 
742 (plurality opinion)).

However, like the Rapanos plurality before it, the Court
focuses only on the term “waters”; it does not determine the 
extent  to  which  the  CWA’s  other  jurisdictional  terms—
“navigable” and “of the United States”—limit the reach of
the statute.  Ante, at 14–18; Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 731 (plu-
rality  opinion).  I  write  separately  to  pick  up  where  the