Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 81.0

14 

SACKETT v. EPA 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in judgment 

storms,  floods,  and  erosion  frequently  shift  or  breach
natural river berms?  Can a continuous surface connection 
be  established  by  a  ditch,  swale, pipe,  or  culvert?    See 88 
Fed. Reg. 3095.  The Court covers wetlands separated from
a  water  by  an  artificial  barrier  constructed  illegally,  see 
ante,  at  21–22,  n. 16,  but  why  not  also  include  barriers 
authorized by the Army Corps at a time when it would not 
have  known  that  the  barrier  would  cut  off  federal 
authority?  The list goes on.

Put  simply, 

test—rewriting 
the  Court’s  atextual 
“adjacent”  to  mean  “adjoining”—will  produce  real-world 
consequences for the waters of the United States and will 
generate regulatory uncertainty.  I would stick to the text. 
There can be no debate, in my respectful view, that the key
statutory term is “adjacent” and that adjacent wetlands is
a broader category than adjoining wetlands.  To be faithful 
to  the  statutory  text,  we  cannot  interpret  “adjacent”
wetlands to be the same thing as “adjoining” wetlands. 

* 

* 

for  adjacent  wetlands. 

* 
In sum, I agree with the Court’s decision not to adopt the
“significant  nexus”  test 
I 
respectfully  disagree,  however,  with  the  Court’s  new 
“continuous  surface  connection”  test. 
In  my  view,  the 
Court’s new test is overly narrow and inconsistent with the 
Act’s  coverage  of  adjacent  wetlands.    The  Act  covers 
adjacent wetlands, and a wetland is “adjacent” to a covered 
water  (i)  if  the  wetland  is  contiguous  to  or  bordering  a 
covered  water,  or  (ii)  if  the  wetland  is  separated  from  a 
covered water only by a man-made dike or barrier, natural
river berm, beach dune, or the like.  The wetlands on the 
Sacketts’ property do not fall into either of those categories
and  therefore  are  not  covered  under  the  Act  as  I  would 
interpret it.  Therefore, like the Court, I would reverse the 
judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 
and  remand  for  further  proceedings.    But  I  respectfully