Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

4 

SACKETT v. EPA 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

derstood, and must have been so understood, when the con-
stitution  was  framed”);  see  also  R.  Barnett,  The  Original 
Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 101, 
125–126 (2001) (Barnett); R. Natelson, The Legal Meaning 
of  “Commerce”  in  the  Commerce  Clause,  80  St.  John’s 
L. Rev. 789, 807–810 (2006).  In fact, “shipping . . . was at 
that  time  the  indispensable  means  for  the  movement  of 
goods.”  Barnett  123.  The  Commerce  Clause  thus  vests 
Congress  with  a  limited  authority  over  what  we  now  call 
the  “channels  of  interstate  commerce.”    United  States  v. 
Lopez,  514  U. S.  549,  558–559  (1995);  see  also  American 
Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Los Angeles, 569 U. S. 641, 656–657 
(2013) (THOMAS, J., concurring).

This federal authority, however, does not displace States’ 
traditional  sovereignty  over  their  waters.  “The  power  to 
regulate  commerce  comprehends  the  control  for  that  pur-
pose, and to the extent necessary, of all the navigable wa-
ters of the United States which are accessible from a State 
other  than  those  in  which  they  lie.”    Gilman  v.  Philadel-
phia, 3 Wall. 713, 724–725 (1866) (emphasis added).  And, 
traditionally, this limited authority was confined to regula-
tion  of  the  channels  of  interstate  commerce  themselves. 
Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546, 550–551 (No. 3,230) (CC 
ED  Pa.  1823)  (Washington,  J.,  for  the  Court).    It  encom-
passed only “the power to keep them open and free from any 
obstruction  to  their  navigation”  and  “to  remove  such  ob-
structions when they exist.”  Gilman, 3 Wall., at 725.  Thus, 
any  activity  that  “interferes  with,  obstructs,  or  prevents
such commerce and navigation, though done on land, may
be punished by congress.”  Coombs, 12 Pet., at 78.  But, ac-
tivities that merely “affect” water-based commerce, such as
those  regulated  by  “[i]nspection  laws,  quarantine  laws, 
health laws of every description, as well as laws for regu-
lating  the  internal  commerce  of  a  State,”  are  not  within 
Congress’  channels-of-commerce  authority.  Gibbons,  9 
Wheat., at 203; see also Corfield, 6 F. Cas., at 550.