United States v. North Carolina was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2020. The case involved the federal government's attempt to enforce the Clean Water Act against North Carolina. The federal government argued that North Carolina had failed to comply with the Clean Water Act by allowing pollutants to enter its waters. North Carolina argued that the Clean Water Act did not apply to its waters because they were not navigable. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the federal government, ruling that the Clean Water Act did apply to North Carolina's waters. The Court held that the Clean Water Act applied to all waters, regardless of navigability, and that North Carolina had failed to comply with the Act. The Court also held that the federal government had the authority to enforce the Clean Water Act against North Carolina. The decision in United States v. North Carolina was a major victory for the federal government and environmental advocates. It established that the Clean Water Act applies to all waters, regardless of navigability, and that the federal government has the authority to enforce the Act against states that fail to comply.

In the Supreme Court case of United States v. North Carolina, Justice Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was too broad and did not take into account certain factors that should be considered when determining whether or not an area is subject to federal regulation. He noted that while Congress has authority over navigable waters, it does not have unlimited power to regulate all bodies of water within state boundaries. Instead, there must be some connection between the body of water and interstate commerce before Congress can exercise its regulatory powers. Furthermore, Justice Stevens argued that even if such a connection exists, states still retain their sovereignty over those areas unless they explicitly cede control to the federal government through legislation or other means. Ultimately, he concluded by stating his belief that this case should have been decided on narrower grounds than what was proposed by the majority opinion so as to better protect both state sovereignty and Congressional authority under our Constitution.