Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 78.0

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

11 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in judgment 

seriously  disputed  that  the  Act  covers  adjacent  wetlands. 
And  in  light  of  the  text  of  the  Act,  eight  consecutive
Presidential administrations have recognized that the Act 
covers  adjacent  wetlands  and  that  adjacent  wetlands 
include more than simply adjoining wetlands.  The Court’s 
analysis  today  therefore  seems  stuck  in  a  bit  of  a  time 
warp—relitigating  an  issue  that  Congress  settled  in  1977
and  that  this  Court  has  long  treated  as  settled:  The  Act 
covers  adjacent  wetlands.  By  adopting  a  test  that 
substitutes “adjoining” for “adjacent,” the Court today errs.
The  Court  also  invokes  federalism  and  vagueness 
concerns. 
The  Court  suggests  that  ambiguities  or 
vagueness  in  federal  statutes  regulating  private  property 
should  be  construed  in  favor  of  the  property  owner,
particularly given that States have traditionally regulated
private property rights.  See ante, at 23–25; see also Solid 
Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty., 531 U. S., at 173–174. 
To begin with, the Federal Government has long regulated 
the  waters  of  the  United  States,  including  adjacent
wetlands. 

In  any  event,  the  decisive  point  here  is  that  the  term
“adjacent”  in  this  statute  is  unambiguously  broader  than 
the term “adjoining.”  On that critical interpretive question, 
there  is  no  ambiguity.   We  should  not  create  ambiguity
where none exists.  And we may not rewrite “adjacent” to 
mean  the  same  thing  as  “adjoining,”  as  the  Court  does 
today.

Finally, contrary to the Court’s suggestion otherwise, the 
analysis in this separate opinion centers on the “operative” 
text, “waters of the United States.”  Ante, at 27.  To recap:
The  1972  Act  covered  “waters  of  the  United  States.”    In 
1977,  when  Congress  allocated  permitting  authority,
Congress expressly included “adjacent” wetlands within the
“waters  of  the  United  States.”   Since  then,  the  Executive 
Branch and this Court have recognized that “waters of the 
United  States”  covers  “adjacent”  wetlands.    Based  on  the