Page:Sackett v. EPA (2023).pdf/6

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
6
SACKETT v. EPA

Syllabus

falls short of establishing the sort of “overwhelming evidence of acquiescence” necessary to support its argument in the face of Congress’s failure to amend §1362(7). Finally, the EPA’s various policy arguments about the ecological consequences of a narrower definition of “adjacent” are rejected. Pp. 25–27.

8 F. 4th 1075, reversed and remanded.

Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined. Kagan, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Sotomayor and Jackson, JJ., joined. Kavanaugh, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, JJ., joined.