Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-260_jifl.pdf
Page Number: 26

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–260 
_________________ 

COUNTY OF MAUI, HAWAII, PETITIONER v. HAWAII 
WILDLIFE FUND, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[April 23, 2020] 

JUSTICE  THOMAS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GORSUCH  joins,

dissenting. 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires a federal permit for
“the discharge of any pollutant by any person.”  33 U. S. C. 
§1311(a); see §1342.  The CWA defines a “discharge” as “any 
addition  of  any  pollutant  to  navigable  waters  from  any
point source.”  §1362(12).1  Based on the statutory text and 
structure, I would hold that a permit is required only when
a point source discharges pollutants directly into navigable 
waters.  The Court adopts this interpretation in part, con-
cluding  that  a  permit  is  required  for  “a  direct  discharge.” 
Ante, at 15.  But the Court then departs from the statutory
text by requiring a permit for “the functional equivalent of 
a direct discharge,” ibid., which it defines through an open-
ended inquiry into congressional intent and practical con-
siderations.  Because I would adhere to the text, I respect-
fully dissent. 

—————— 

1 The  CWA  defines  “navigable  waters”  as  “the  waters  of  the  United 
States,  including  the  territorial  seas.”    §1362(7).    It  defines  a  “point 
source” as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including
but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete 
fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, 
or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be dis-
charged,”  excluding  “agricultural  stormwater  discharges  and  return 
flows from irrigated agriculture.”  §1362(14).