Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf
Page Number: 15

2 

SACKETT v. EPA 

ALITO, J., concurring 

millions.  In a nation that values due process, not to men-
tion private property, such treatment is unthinkable. 

The  Court’s  decision  provides  a  modest  measure  of  re-
lief.  At  least,  property  owners  like  petitioners  will  have 
the right to challenge the EPA’s jurisdictional determina-
tion  under  the  Administrative  Procedure  Act.    But  the 
combination of the uncertain reach of the Clean Water Act 
and the draconian penalties imposed for the sort of viola-
tions alleged in this case still leaves most property owners
with  little  practical  alternative  but  to  dance  to  the  EPA’s 
tune. 

Real relief requires Congress to do what it should have
done in the first place: provide a reasonably clear rule re- 
garding  the  reach  of  the  Clean  Water  Act.    When  Con- 
gress  passed  the  Clean  Water  Act  in  1972,  it  provided
that the Act covers “the waters of the United States.”  33 
U. S. C.  §1362(7).    But  Congress  did  not  define  what  it
meant  by  “the  waters  of  the  United  States”;  the  phrase
was  not  a  term  of  art  with  a  known  meaning;  and  the 
words  themselves  are  hopelessly  indeterminate.    Unsur-
prisingly,  the  EPA  and  the  Army  Corps  of  Engineers  in- 
terpreted  the  phrase  as  an  essentially  limitless  grant  of 
authority.  We  rejected  that  boundless  view,  see  Rapanos 
v.  United  States,  547  U. S.  715,  732–739  (2006)  (plurality 
opinion);  Solid  Waste  Agency  of  Northern  Cook  Cty.  v. 
Army  Corps  of  Engineers,  531  U. S.  159,  167–174  (2001),
but  the  precise  reach  of  the  Act  remains  unclear.    For  40 
years,  Congress  has  done  nothing  to  resolve  this  critical 
ambiguity,  and  the  EPA  has  not  seen  fit  to  promulgate  a
rule providing a clear and sufficiently limited definition of 
the  phrase.  Instead,  the  agency  has  relied  on  informal 
guidance.  But  far  from  providing  clarity  and  predictabil-
ity, the agency’s latest informal guidance advises property 
owners  that  many  jurisdictional  determinations  concern-
ing wetlands can only be made on a case-by-case basis by
EPA  field  staff.  See  Brief  for  Competitive  Enterprise