Abstract: In 2023, the United States Supreme Court denied decades of precedent, agency action, and the proper use of canons of interpretation in its decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (Sackett). This case adopted the “continuous surface connection” test, which requires an indistinguishable surface water connection between a wetland and a navigable water to assert Clean Water Act jurisdiction over the wetland. This limitation on agency authority under the Clean Water Act was created through a statutory analysis that failed to apply the “Plain Meaning” and “Whole Act” canons of statutory interpretation. The Court narrowly applied the meaning of the word “adjacent” to exclude that which is “near,” in its belief that such an interpretation would properly limit the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act. In doing so, the Court found “adjacent” could only mean “contiguous” in the context of the Clean Water Act, without a clear statement from Congress otherwise. This holding was reached without acknowledgment of the clear text or the purpose of the Clean Water Act.
This Comment criticizes the Court’s failure to apply the “Plain Meaning” and “Whole Act” canons of interpretation in Sackett. While the canons of interpretation are nonbinding tools used at the Court’s discretion, this Comment argues for their proper application to provide stability and reliability within the law. In Sackett, the Court used a clear statement rule that undermined the purpose of the Clean Water Act. A proper application of the “Plain Meaning” and “Whole Act” canons of interpretation would have allowed for the intended exercise of Clean Water Act jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to protected navigable waters. This Comment further proposes a legislative solution to limit the harmful impact of the Court’s failure to use these important interpretive canons in Sackett.
