Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 61

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

27 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

The  Court’s  opinion  today  curbs  a  serious  expansion  of 
federal authority that has simultaneously degraded States’ 
authority  and  diverted  the  Federal  Government  from  its
important role as guarantor of the Nation’s great commer-
cial water highways into something resembling “a local zon-
ing board.”  Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 738 (plurality opinion).
But, wetlands are just the beginning of the problems raised 
by the agencies’ assertion of jurisdiction in this case.  De-
spite our clear guidance in SWANCC that the CWA extends 
only to the limits of Congress’ traditional jurisdiction over 
navigable waters, the EPA and the Corps have continued to 
treat the statute as if it were based on New Deal era con-
ceptions of Congress’ commerce power.  But, while not all 
environmental statutes are so textually limited, Congress
chose  to  tether  federal  jurisdiction  under  the  CWA  to  its
traditional authority over navigable waters.  The EPA and 
the Corps must respect that decision.