Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

26 

SACKETT v. EPA 

Opinion of the Court 

shows that “adjacent” cannot include wetlands that are not 
part of covered “waters.”  See supra, at 22. 

Second, this ratification theory cannot be reconciled with 
our cases.  We have repeatedly recognized that §1344(g)(1) 
“ ‘does  not  conclusively  determine  the  construction  to  be 
placed  on  . . .  the  relevant  definition  of  “navigable  wa-
ters.” ’ ”  SWANCC,  531  U. S.,  at  171  (quoting  Riverside 
Bayview,  474  U. S.,  at  138,  n. 11);  accord,  Rapanos,  547 
U. S.,  at  747–748,  n. 12  (plurality  opinion).  Additionally, 
SWANCC  rejected  the  closely  analogous  argument  that 
Congress  ratified  the  Corps’  definition  of  “waters  of  the
United  States”  by  including  “ ‘other 
. . .  waters’ ”  in 
§1344(g)(1).  531 U. S., at 168–171.  And yet, the EPA’s ar-
gument would require us to hold that §1344(g)(1) actually 
did amend the definition of “navigable waters” precisely for 
the reasons we rejected in SWANCC. 

Third, the EPA cannot provide the sort of “overwhelming
evidence  of  acquiescence”  necessary  to  support  its  argu-
ment  in  the  face  of  Congress’s  failure  to  amend  §1362(7). 
Id., at 169–170, n. 5.  We will infer that a term was “ ‘trans-
planted from another legal source’ . . . only when a term’s
meaning  was  ‘well-settled’  before  the  transplantation.” 
Kemp v. United States, 596 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2022) (slip 
op., at 9–10).  Far from being well settled, the Corps’ defini-
tion was promulgated mere months before the CWA became 
law,  and  when  the  Corps  adopted  that  definition,  it  can-
didly  acknowledged  the  “rapidly  changing  nature  of  [its] 
regulatory programs.”  42 Fed. Reg. 37122.  Tellingly, even
the  EPA  would  not  adopt  that  definition  for  several  more 
years.  See 45 Fed. Reg. 85345 (1980).  This situation is a 
far cry from any in which we have found ratification.  See, 
e.g.,  George  v.  McDonough,  596  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2022)  (slip 
op., at 5) (finding ratification when “Congress used an unu-
sual term that had a long regulatory history in [the] very 
regulatory context” at issue). 

The EPA also advances various policy arguments about