Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 76

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

9 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in judgment 

omitted).

its  narrower 

The  Court’s  “continuous  surface  connection”  test 
disregards the ordinary meaning of “adjacent.”  The Court’s 
mistake  is  straightforward:  The  Court  essentially  reads
“adjacent”  to  mean  “adjoining.”    As  a  result,  the  Court 
excludes  wetlands  that  the  text  of  the  Clean  Water  Act 
covers—and  that  the  Act  since  1977  has  always  been 
interpreted to cover. 
In  support  of 

“continuous  surface 
connection”  interpretation  of  covered  wetlands,  the  Court 
emphasizes that the 1972 Act’s overarching statutory term
is “waters of the United States.”  Ante, at 19.  And the Court 
suggests that the term “waters of the United States” cannot 
be  interpreted  to  cover  “adjacent  wetlands”  but  only
“adjoining  wetlands.”  See  ante,  at  19–22.  But  in  1977, 
Congress itself expressly made clear that the “waters of the
United States” include “adjacent” wetlands.  91 Stat. 1601. 
And Congress would not have used the word “adjacent” in
1977  if  Congress  actually  meant  “adjoining,”  particularly 
because  Congress  used  the  word  “adjoining”  in  several
other places in the Clean Water Act.  33 U. S. C. §§1321(b)–
(c), 1346(c); see also §§1254(n)(4), 2802(5). 

To  bolster  its  unorthodox  statutory  interpretation,  the
Court resorts to a formula:  “A minus B, which includes C.” 
Ante, at 19.  That just seems to be a fancier way of arguing 
(against  all 
indications  of  ordinary  meaning)  that 
“adjacent”  means  “adjoining.”  But  again  the  Court  is
imposing a restriction nowhere to be found in the text.  In 
the  end,  the  Court  has  no  good  answer  for  why  Congress 
used  the  term  “adjacent”  instead  of  “adjoining”  when
Congress enacted §1344(g) in 1977.1 

—————— 

1 Perhaps  recognizing  the  difficulty  of  reading  the  Act  to  mean 
“adjoining”  when  it  actually  says  “adjacent,”  the  Court  at  one  point 
suggests that “adjoining” is equivalent to “adjacent.”  Ante, at 19–20.  As 
a  matter  of  ordinary  meaning,  as  explained  at  length  above,  that  is 
incorrect.  Adjoining wetlands are a subset of adjacent wetlands, not the