author: Justice White

text:
    UNITED STATES v. RIVERSIDE BAYVIEW HOMES, INC., et al.
    No. 84-701.
    Argued October 16, 1985
    Decided December 4, 1985

      White, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Kathryn A. Oberly argued the cause for the United States. With her on the briefs were former Solicitor General Lee, Acting Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Habicht, Deputy Solicitor General Claiborne, and Anne S. Almy.

      Edgar B. Washburn argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Richard K. Gienapp.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the National Wildlife Federation et al. by Jerry Jackson, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, and Louis Caruso, Solicitor General; and for the State of California et al. by John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General of California, N. Gregory Taylor and Theodora Berger, Assistant Attorneys General, and Steven H. Kaufmann and David W. Hamilton, Deputy Attorneys General, Joseph I. Lieberman, Attorney General of Connecticut, Michael A. Lilly, Attorney General of Hawaii, Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General of Illinois, and Jill Wine-Banks, Solicitor General, William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of Louisiana, Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General of Maryland, Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General of Minnesota, William L. Webster, Attorney General of Missouri, Mike Greely, Attorney General of Montana, Robert M. Spire, Attorney General of Nebraska, .Paul Bardacke, Attorney General of New Mexico, Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General of North Carolina, Arlene Violet, Attorney General of Rhode Island, W. J. Michael Cody, Attorney General of Tennessee, Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General of Vermont, Charlie Brown, Attorney General of West Virginia, and Bronson C. La Follette, Attorney General of Wisconsin.

        Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Petroleum Institute by Stark Ritchie and James K. Jackson; for the Citizens of Chineoteague for a Reasonable Wetlands Policy by Richard R. Nageotte; for the Mid-Atlantic Developers Association by Kenneth D. McPherson; and for the Pacific Legal Foundation et al. by Ronald A. Zumbrun and Sam Kazman.

        R. Sarah Compton and Robin S. Conrad filed a brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States as amicus curiae.

   Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U. S. C. §1251 et seq., together with certain regulations promulgated under its authority by the Army Corps of Engineers, authorizes the Corps to require landowners to obtain permits from the Corps before discharging fill material into wetlands adjacent to navigable bodies of water and their tributaries.

HH

The relevant provisions of the Clean Water Act originated in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 816, and have remained essentially unchanged since that time. Under §§301 and 502 of the Act, 33 U. S. C. §§ 1311 and 1362, any discharge of dredged or fill materials into “navigable waters” — defined as the “waters of the United States” — is forbidden unless authorized by a permit issued by the Corps of Engineers pursuant to § 404, 33 U. S. C. § 1344. After initially construing the Act to cover only waters navigable in fact, in 1975 the Corps issued interim final regulations redefining “the waters of the United States” to include not only actually navigable waters but also tributaries of such waters, interstate waters and their tributaries, and nonnavigable intrastate waters whose use or misuse could affect interstate commerce. 40 Fed. Reg. 31320 (1975). More importantly for present purposes, the Corps construed the Act to cover all “freshwater wetlands” that were adjacent to other covered waters. A “freshwater wetland” was defined as an area that is “periodically inundated” and is “normally characterized by the prevalence of vegetation that requires saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction.” 33 CFR § 209.120(d)(2)W (1976). In 1977, the Corps refined its definition of wetlands by eliminating the reference to periodic inundation and making other minor changes. The 1977 definition reads as follows:

“The term ‘wetlands’ means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for fife in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas.” 33 CFR §323.2(c) (1978).

In 1982, the 1977 regulations were replaced by substantively identical regulations that remain in force today. See 33 CFR §323.2 (1985).

Respondent Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (hereafter respondent), owns 80 acres of low-lying, marshy land near the shores of Lake St. Clair in Macomb County, Michigan. In 1976, respondent began to place fill materials on its property as part of its preparations for construction of a housing development. The Corps of Engineers, believing that the property was an “adjacent wetland” under the 1975 regulation defining “waters of the United States,” filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking to enjoin respondent from filling the property without the permission of the Corps.

The District Court held that the portion of respondent’s property lying below 575.5 feet above sea level was a covered wetland and enjoined respondent from filling it without a permit. Civ. No. 77-70041 (Feb. 24, 1977) (App. to Pet. for Cert. 22a); Civ. No. 77-70041 (June 21, 1979) (App. to Pet. for Cert. 32a). Respondent appealed, and the Court of Appeals remanded for consideration of the effect of the intervening 1977 amendments to the regulation. 615 F. 2d 1363 (1980). On remand, the District Court again held the property to be a wetland subject to the Corps’ permit authority. Civ. No. 77-70041 (May 10, 1981) (App. to Pet. for Cert. 42a).

Respondent again appealed, and the Sixth Circuit reversed. 729 F. 2d 391 (1984). The court construed the Corps’ regulation to exclude from the category of adjacent wetlands — and hence from that of “waters of the United States” — wetlands that were not subject to flooding by adjacent navigable waters at a frequency sufficient to support the growth of aquatic vegetation. The court adopted this construction of the regulation because, in its view, a broader definition of wetlands might result in the taking of private property without just compensation. The court also expressed its doubt that Congress, in granting the Corps jurisdiction to regulate the filling of “navigable waters,” intended to allow regulation of wetlands that were not the result of flooding by navigable waters. Under the court’s reading of the regulation, respondent’s property was not within the Corps’ jurisdiction, because its semiaquatic characteristics were not the result of frequent flooding by the nearby navigable waters. Respondent was therefore free to fill the property without obtaining a permit.

We granted certiorari to consider the proper interpretation of the Corps’ regulation defining “waters of the United States” and the scope of the Corps’ jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, both of which were called into question by the Sixth Circuit’s ruling. 469 U. S. 1206 (1985). We now reverse.

M h — I

The question whether the Corps of Engineers may demand that respondent obtain a permit before placing fill material on its property is primarily one of regulatory and statutory interpretation: we must determine whether respondent’s property is an “adjacent wetland” within the meaning of the applicable regulation, and, if so, whether the Corps’ jurisdiction over “navigable waters” gives it statutory authority to regulate discharges of fill material into such a wetland. In this connection, we first consider the Court of Appeals’ position that the Corps’ regulatory authority under the statute and its implementing regulations must be narrowly construed to avoid a taking without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

We have frequently suggested that governmental land-use regulation may under extreme circumstances amount to a “taking” of the affected property. See, e. g., Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U. S. 172 (1985); Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104 (1978). We have never precisely defined those circumstances, see id., at 123-128; but our general approach was summed up in Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255, 260 (1980), where we stated that the application of land-use regulations to a particular piece of property is a taking only “if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests ... or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.” Moreover, we have made it quite clear that the mere assertion of regulatory jurisdiction by a governmental body does not constitute a regulatory taking. See Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., 452 U. S. 264, 293-297 (1981). The reasons are obvious. A requirement that a person obtain a permit before engaging in a certain use of his or her property does not itself “take” the property in any sense: after all, the very existence of a permit system implies that permission may be granted, leaving the landowner free to use the property as desired. Moreover, even if the permit is denied, there may be other viable uses available to the owner. Only when a permit is denied and the effect of the denial is to prevent “economically viable” use of the land in question can it be said that a taking has occurred.

If neither the imposition of the permit requirement itself nor the denial of a permit necessarily constitutes a taking, it follows that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that a narrow reading of the Corps’ regulatory jurisdiction over wetlands was “necessary” to avoid “a serious taking problem.” 729 F. 2d, at 398. We have held that, in general, “[e]quitable relief is not available to enjoin an alleged taking of private property for a public use, duly authorized by law, when a suit for compensation can be brought against the sovereign subsequent to a taking.” Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986, 1016 (1984) (footnote omitted). This maxim rests on the principle that so long as compensation is available for those whose property is in fact taken, the governmental action is not unconstitutional. Williamson County, swpra, at 194-195. For precisely the same reason, the possibility that the application of a regulatory program may in some instances result in the taking of individual pieces of property is no justification for the use of narrowing constructions to curtail the program if compensation will in any event be available in those cases where a taking has occurred. Under such circumstances, adoption of a narrowing construction does not constitute avoidance of a constitutional difficulty, cf. Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 341-356 (1936) (Brandéis, J., concurring); it merely frustrates permissible applications of a statute or regulation. Because the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. §1491, which presumptively supplies a means of obtaining compensation for any taking that may occur through the operation of a federal statute, see Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., supra, at 1017, is available to provide compensation for takings that may result from the Corps’ exercise of jurisdiction over wetlands, the Court of Appeals’ fears that application of the Corps’ permit program might result in a taking did not justify the court in adopting a more limited view of the Corps’ authority than the terms of the relevant regulation might otherwise support.

Ill

Purged of its spurious constitutional overtones, the question whether the regulation at issue requires respondent to obtain a permit before filling its property is an easy one. The regulation extends the Corps’ authority under § 404 to all wetlands adjacent to navigable or interstate waters and their tributaries. Wetlands, in turn, are defined as lands that are “inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” 33 CFR § 323.2(c) (1985) (emphasis added). The plain language of the regulation refutes the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that inundation or “frequent flooding” by the adjacent body of water is a sine qua non of a wetland under the regulation. Indeed, the regulation could hardly state more clearly that saturation by either surface or ground water is sufficient to bring an area within the category of wetlands, provided that the saturation is sufficient to and does support wetland vegetation.

The history of the regulation underscores the absence of any requirement of inundation. The interim final regulation that the current regulation replaced explicitly included a requirement of “periodi[c] inundation.” 33 CFR §209.120-(d)(2)(7t) (1976). In deleting the reference to “periodic inundation” from the regulation as finally promulgated, the Corps explained that it was repudiating the interpretation of that language “as requiring inundation over a record period of years.” 42 Fed. Reg. 37128 (1977). In fashioning its own requirement of “frequent flooding” the Court of Appeals improperly reintroduced into the regulation precisely what the Corps had excised.

Without the nonexistent requirement of frequent flooding, the regulatory definition of adjacent wetlands covers the property here. The District Court found that respondent’s property was “characterized by the presence of vegetation that requires saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 24a, and that the source of the saturated soil conditions on the property was ground water. There is no plausible suggestion that these findings are clearly erroneous, and they plainly bring the property within the category of wetlands as defined by the current regulation. In addition, the court found that the wetland located on respondent’s property was adjacent to a body of navigable water, since the area characterized by saturated soil conditions and wetland vegetation extended beyond the boundary of respondent’s property to Black Creek, a navigable waterway. Again, the court’s finding is not clearly erroneous. Together, these findings establish that respondent’s property is a wetland adjacent to a navigable waterway. Hence, it is part of the “waters of the United States” as defined by 33 CFR § 323.2 (1985), and if the regulation itself is valid as a construction of the term “waters of the United States” as used in the Clean Water Act, a question which we now address, the property falls within the scope of the Corps’ jurisdiction over “navigable waters” under § 404 of the Act.

> J — I

A

An agency’s construction of a statute it is charged with enforcing is entitled to deference if it is reasonable and not in conflict with the expressed intent of Congress. Chemical Manufacturers Assn. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 470 U. S. 116, 125 (1985); Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-845 (1984). Accordingly, our review is limited to the question whether it is reasonable, in light of the language, policies, and legislative history of the Act for the Corps to exercise jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to but not regularly flooded by rivers, streams, and other hydrographic features more conventionally identifiable as “waters.”

On a purely linguistic level, it may appear unreasonable to classify “lands,” wet or otherwise, as “waters.” Such a simplistic response, however, does justice neither to the problem faced by the Corps in defining the scope of its authority under § 404(a) nor to the realities of the problem of water pollution that the Clean Water Act was intended to combat. In determining the limits of its power to regulate discharges under the Act, the Corps must necessarily choose some point at which water ends and land begins. Our common experience tells us that this is often no easy task: the transition from water to solid ground is not necessarily or even typically an abrupt one. Rather, between open waters and dry land may-lie shallows, marshes, mudflats, swamps, bogs — in short, a huge array of areas that are not wholly aquatic but nevertheless fall far short of being dry land. Where on this continuum to find the limit of “waters” is far from obvious.

Faced with such a problem of defining the bounds of its regulatory authority, an agency may appropriately look to the legislative history and underlying policies of its statutory grants of authority. Neither of these sources provides unambiguous guidance for the Corps in this case, but together they do support the reasonableness of the Corps’ approach of defining adjacent wetlands as “waters” within the meaning of § 404(a). Section 404 originated as part of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, which constituted a comprehensive legislative attempt “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” CWA § 101, 33 U. S. C. § 1251. This objective incorporated a broad, systemic view of the goal of maintaining and improving water quality: as the House Report on the legislation put it, “the word ‘integrity’. . . refers to a condition in which the natural structure and function of ecosystems [are] maintained.” H. R. Rep. No. 92-911, p. 76 (1972). Protection of aquatic ecosystems, Congress recognized, demanded broad federal authority to control pollution, for “[w]ater moves in hydrologic cycles and it is essential that discharge of pollutants be controlled at the source.” S. Rep. No. 92-414, p. 77 (1972).

In keeping with these views, Congress chose to define the waters covered by the Act broadly. Although the Act prohibits discharges into “navigable waters,” see CWA §§ 301(a), 404(a), 502(12), 33 U. S. C. §§ 1311(a), 1344(a), 1362(12), the Act’s definition of “navigable waters” as “the waters of the United States” makes it clear that the term “navigable” as used in the Act is of limited import. In adopting this definition of “navigable waters,” Congress evidently intended to repudiate limits that had been placed on federal regulation by earlier water pollution control statutes and to exercise its powers under the Commerce Clause to regulate at least some waters that would not be deemed “navigable” under the classical understanding of that term. See S. Conf. Rep. No. 92-1236, p. 144 (1972); 118 Cong. Rec. 33756-33757 (1972) (statement of Rep. Dingell).

Of course, it is one thing to recognize that Congress intended to allow regulation of waters that might not satisfy traditional tests of navigability; it is another to assert that Congress intended to abandon traditional notions of “waters” and include in that term “wetlands” as well. Nonetheless, the evident breadth of congressional concern for protection of water quality and aquatic ecosystems suggests that it is reasonable for the Corps to interpret the term “waters” to encompass wetlands adjacent to waters as more conventionally defined. Following the lead of the Environmental Protection Agency, see 38 Fed. Reg. 10834 (1973), the Corps has determined that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters do as a general matter play a key role in protecting and enhancing water quality:

“The regulation of activities that cause water pollution cannot rely on . . . artificial lines . . . but must focus on all waters that together form the entire aquatic system. Water moves in hydrologic cycles, and the pollution of this part of the aquatic system, regardless of whether it is above or below an ordinary high water mark, or mean high tide line, will affect the water quality of the other waters within that aquatic system.
“For this reason, the landward limit of Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 must include any adjacent wetlands that form the border of or are in reasonable proximity to other waters of the United States, as these wetlands are part of this aquatic system.” 42 Fed. Reg. 37128 (1977).

We cannot say that the Corps’ conclusion that adjacent wetlands are inseparably bound up with the “waters” of the United States — based as it is on the Corps’ and EPA’s technical expertise — is unreasonable. In view of the breadth of federal regulatory authority contemplated by the Act itself and the inherent difficulties of defining precise bounds to regulable waters, the Corps’ ecological judgment about the relationship between waters and their adjacent wetlands provides an adequate basis for a legal judgment that adjacent wetlands may be defined as waters under the Act.

This holds true even for wetlands that are not the result of flooding or permeation by water having its source in adjacent bodies of open water. The Corps has concluded that wetlands may affect the water quality of adjacent lakes, rivers, and streams even when the waters of those bodies do not actually inundate the wetlands. For example, wetlands that are not flooded by adjacent waters may still tend to drain into those waters. In such circumstances, the Corps has concluded that wetlands may serve to filter and purify water draining into adjacent bodies of water, see 33 CFR § 320.4(b)(2)(vii) (1985), and to slow the flow of surface runoff into lakes, rivers, and streams and thus prevent flooding and erosion, see §§320.4(b)(2)(iv) and (v). In addition, adjacent wetlands may “serve significant natural biological functions, including food chain production, general habitat, and nesting, spawning, rearing and resting sites for aquatic . . . species.” § 320-4(b)(2)(i). In short, the Corps has concluded that wetlands adjacent to lakes, rivers, streams, and other bodies of water may function as integral parts of the aquatic environment even when the moisture creating the wetlands does not find its source in the adjacent bodies of water. Again, we cannot say that the Corps’ judgment on these matters is unreasonable, and we therefore conclude that a definition of “waters of the United States” encompassing all wetlands adjacent to other bodies of water over which the Corps has jurisdiction is a permissible interpretation of the Act. Because respondent’s property is part of a wetland that actually abuts on a navigable waterway, respondent was required to have a permit in this case.

B

Following promulgation of the Corps’ interim final regulations in 1975, the Corps’ assertion of authority under §404 over waters not actually navigable engendered some congressional opposition. The controversy came to a head during Congress’ consideration of the Clean Water Act of 1977, a major piece of legislation aimed at achieving “interim improvements within the existing framework” of the Clean Water Act. H. R. Rep. No. 95-139, pp. 1-2 (1977). In the end, however, as we shall explain, Congress acquiesced in the administrative construction.

Critics of the Corps’ permit program attempted to insert limitations on the Corps’ § 404 jurisdiction into the 1977 legislation: the House bill as reported out of committee proposed a redefinition of “navigable waters” that would have limited the Corps’ authority under § 404 to waters navigable in fact and their adjacent wetlands (defined as wetlands periodically inundated by contiguous navigable waters). H. R. 3199, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., § 16 (1977). The bill reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, by contrast, contained no redefinition of the scope of the “navigable waters” covered by § 404, and dealt with the perceived problem of overregulation by the Corps by exempting certain activities (primarily agricultural) from the permit requirement and by providing for assumption of some of the Corps’ regulatory duties by federally approved state programs. S. 1952, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., §49(b) (1977). On the floor of the Senate, however, an amendment was proposed limiting the scope of “navigable waters” along the lines set forth in the House bill. 123 Cong. Rec. 26710-26711 (1977).

In both Chambers, debate on the proposals to narrow the definition of navigable waters centered largely on the issue of wetlands preservation. See id., at 10426-10432 (House debate); id., at 26710-26729 (Senate debate). Proponents of a more limited § 404 jurisdiction contended that the Corps’ assertion of jurisdiction over wetlands and other nonnavigable “waters” had far exceeded what Congress had intended in enacting § 404. Opponents of the proposed changes argued that a narrower definition of “navigable waters” for purposes of § 404 would exclude vast stretches of crucial wetlands from the Corps’ jurisdiction, with detrimental effects on wetlands ecosystems, water quality, and the aquatic environment generally. The debate, particularly in the Senate, was lengthy. In the House, the debate ended with the adoption of a narrowed definition of “waters”; but in the Senate the limiting amendment was defeated and the old definition retained. The Conference Committee adopted the Senate’s approach: efforts to narrow the definition of “waters” were abandoned; the legislation as ultimately passed, in the words of Senator Baker, “retain[ed] the comprehensive jurisdiction over the Nation’s waters exercised in the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act.”

The significance of Congress’ treatment of the Corps’ § 404 jurisdiction in its consideration of the Clean Water Act of 1977 is twofold. First, the scope of the Corps’ asserted jurisdiction over wetlands was specifically brought to Congress’ attention, and Congress rejected measures designed to curb the Corps’ jurisdiction in large part because of its concern that protection of wetlands would be unduly hampered by a narrowed definition of “navigable waters.” Although we are chary of attributing significance to Congress’ failure to act, a refusal by Congress to overrule an agency’s construction of legislation is at least some evidence of the reasonableness of that construction, particularly where the administrative construction has been brought to Congress’ attention through legislation specifically designed to supplant it. See Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U. S. 574, 599-601 (1983); United States v. Rutherford, 442 U. S. 544, 554, and n. 10 (1979).

Second, it is notable that even those who would have restricted the reach of the Corps’ jurisdiction would have done so not by removing wetlands altogether from the definition of “waters of the United States,” but only by restricting the scope of “navigable waters” under § 404 to waters navigable in fact and their adjacent wetlands. In amending the definition of “navigable waters” for purposes of §404 only, the backers of the House bill would have left intact the existing definition of “navigable waters” for purposes of § 301 of the Act, which generally prohibits discharges of pollutants into navigable waters. As the House Report explained: “‘Navigable waters’ as used in section 301 includes all of the waters of the United States including their adjacent wetlands.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-139, p. 24 (1977). Thus, even those who thought that the Corps’ existing authority under §404 was too broad recognized (1) that the definition of “navigable waters” then in force for both § 301 and § 404 was reasonably interpreted to include adjacent wetlands, (2) that the water quality concerns of the Clean Water Act demanded regulation of at least some discharges into wetlands, and (3) that whatever jurisdiction the Corps would retain over discharges of fill material after passage of the 1977 legislation should extend to discharges into wetlands adjacent to any waters over which the Corps retained jurisdiction. These views provide additional support for a conclusion that Congress in 1977 acquiesced in the Corps’ definition of waters as including adjacent wetlands.

Two features actually included in the legislation that Congress enacted in 1977 also support the view that the Act authorizes the Corps to regulate discharges into wetlands. First, in amending §404 to allow federally approved state permit programs to supplant regulation by the Corps of certain discharges of fill material, Congress provided that the States would not be permitted to supersede the Corps’ jurisdiction to regulate discharges into actually navigable waters and waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, “including wetlands adjacent thereto.” CWA § 404(g)(1), 33 U. S. C. § 1344(g)(1). Here, then, Congress expressly stated that the term “waters” included adjacent wetlands. Second, the 1977 Act authorized an appropriation of $6 million for completion by the Department of Interior of a “National Wetlands Inventory” to assist the States “in the development and operation of programs under this Act.” CWA §208(i)(2), 33 U. S. C. §1288(i)(2). The enactment of this provision reflects congressional recognition that wetlands are a concern of the Clean Water Act and supports the conclusion that in defining the waters covered by the Act to include wetlands, the Corps is “implementing congressional policy rather than embarking on a frolic of its own.” Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 375 (1969).

C

We are thus persuaded that the language, policies, and history of the Clean Water Act compel a finding that the Corps has acted reasonably in interpreting the Act to require permits for the discharge of fill material into wetlands adjacent to the “waters of the United States.” The regulation in which the Corps has embodied this interpretation by its terms includes the wetlands on respondent’s property within the class of waters that may not be filled without a permit; and, as we have seen, there is no reason to interpret the regulation more narrowly than its terms would indicate. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Reversed.

       With respect to certain waters, the Corps’ authority may be transferred to States that have devised federally approved permit programs. CWA § 404(g), as added, 91 Stat. 1600, 33 U. S. C. § 1344(g). Absent such an approved program, the Corps retains jurisdiction under § 404 over all “waters of the United States.”

       The regulations also cover certain wetlands not necessarily adjacent to other waters. See 33 CFR §§ 323.2(a)(2) and (3) (1985). These provisions are not now before us.

       In denying the Government’s petition for rehearing, the panel reiterated somewhat more strongly its belief that the Corps’ construction of its regulation was “overbroad and inconsistent with the language of the Act.” 729 F. 2d, at 401.

       Even were the Court of Appeals correct in concluding that a narrowing construction of the regulation is necessary to avoid takings of property through the application of the permit requirement, the construction adopted — which requires a showing of frequent flooding before property may be classified as a wetland — is hardly tailored to the supposed difficulty. Whether the denial of a permit would constitute a taking in any given case would depend upon the effect of the denial on the owner’s ability to put the property to productive use. Whether the property was frequently flooded would have no particular bearing on this question, for overbroad regulation of even completely submerged property may constitute a taking. See, e. g., Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164 (1979). Indeed, it may be more likely that denying a permit to fill frequently flooded property will prevent economically viable use of the property than denying a permit to fill property that is wet but not flooded. Of course, by excluding a large chunk of the Nation’s wetlands from the regulatory definition, the Court of Appeals’ construction might tend to limit the gross number of takings that the permit program would otherwise entail; but the construction adopted still bears an insufficiently precise relationship with the problem it seeks to avoid.

        United States v. Security Industrial Bank, 459 U. S. 70 (1982), in which we adopted a narrowing construction of a statute to avoid a taking difficulty, is not to the contrary. In that case, the problem was that there was a substantial argument that retroactive application of a particular provision of the Bankruptcy Code would in every ease constitute a taking; the solution was to avoid the difficulty by construing the statute to apply only prospectively. Such an approach is sensible where it appears that there is an identifiable class of cases in which application of a statute will necessarily constitute a taking. As we have observed, this is not such a case: there is no identifiable set of instances in which mere application of the permit requirement will necessarily or even probably constitute a taking. The approach of adopting a limiting construction is thus unwarranted.

       Because the Corps has now denied respondent a permit to fill its property, respondent may well have a ripe claim that a taking has occurred. On the record before us, however, we have no basis for evaluating this claim, because no evidence has been introduced that bears on the question of the extent to which denial of a permit to fill this property will prevent economically viable uses of the property or frustrate reasonable investment-backed expectations. In any event, this lawsuit is not the proper forum for resolving such a dispute: if the Corps has indeed effectively taken respondent’s property, respondent’s proper course is not to resist the Corps’ suit for enforcement by denying that the regulation covers the property, but to initiate a suit for compensation in the Claims Court. In so stating, of course, we do not rule that respondent will be entitled to compensation for any temporary denial of use of its property should the Corps ultimately relent and allow it to be filled. We have not yet resolved the question whether compensation is a constitutionally mandated remedy for “temporary regulatory takings,” see Williamson County Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U. S. 172 (1985), and this case provides no occasion for deciding the issue.

       The Court of Appeals seems also to have rested its frequent-flooding requirement on the language in the regulation stating that wetlands encompass those areas that “under normal circumstances do support” aquatic or semiaquatic vegetation. In the preamble to the final regulation, the Corps explained that this language was intended in part to exclude areas characterized by the “abnormal presence of aquatic vegetation in a non-aquatic area.” 42 Fed. Reg. 37128 (1977). Apparently, the Court of Appeals concluded that the growth of wetlands vegetation in soils saturated by ground water rather than flooded by waters emanating from an adjacent navigable water or its tributaries was “abnormal” within the meaning of the preamble. This interpretation is untenable in light of the explicit statements in both the regulation and its preamble that areas saturated by ground water can fall within the category of wetlands. It would be nonsensical for the Corps to define wetlands to include such areas and then in the same sentence exclude them on the ground that the presence of wetland vegetation in such areas was abnormal. Evidently, the Corps had something else in mind when it referred to “abnormal” growth of wetlands vegetation — namely, the aberrational presence of such vegetation in dry, upland areas.

       We are not called upon to address the question of the authority of the Corps to regulate discharges of fill material into wetlands that are not adjacent to bodies of open water, see 33 CFR §§ 323.2(a)(2) and (3) (1985), and we do not express any opinion on that question.

       Of course, it may well be that not every adjacent wetland is of great importance to the environment of adjoining bodies of water. But the existence of such cases does not seriously undermine the Corps’ decision to define all adjacent wetlands as “waters.” If it is reasonable for the Corps to conclude that in the majority of cases, adjacent wetlands have significant effects on water quality and the aquatic ecosystem, its definition can stand. That the definition may include some wetlands that are not significantly intertwined with the ecosystem of adjacent waterways is of little moment, for where it appears that a wetland covered by the Corps’ definition is in fact lacking in importance to the aquatic environment — or where its importance is outweighed by other values — the Corps may always allow development of the wetland for other uses simply by issuing a permit. See 33 CFR § 320.4(b)(4) (1985).

       123 Cong. Rec. 39209 (1977); see also id., at 39210 (statement of Sen. Wallop); id., at 39196 (statement of Sen. Randolph); id., at 38950 (statement of Rep. Murphy); id., at 38994 (statement of Rep. Ambro).

       To be sure, §404(g)(1) does not conclusively determine the construction to be placed on the use of the term “waters” elsewhere in the Act (particularly in § 502(7), which contains the relevant definition of “navigable waters”); however, in light of the fact that the various provisions of the Act should be read in pari materia, it does at least suggest strongly that the term “waters” as used in the Act does not necessarily exclude “wetlands.”


source: Caselaw Access Project

author:
Justice Marshall
      Justice Brennan, Justice Stevens,

license: Public Domain

text:
    THOMAS v. ARN, SUPERINTENDENT, OHIO REFORMATORY FOR WOMEN
    No. 84-5630.
    Argued October 7, 1985 —
    Decided December 4, 1985

      MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and White, Powell, Rehnquist, and O’Connor, JJ., joined. Brennan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Blackmun, J., joined, post, p. 156. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 157.

      Christopher D. Stanley argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Louis A. Jacobs.

      Richard David Drake, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Attorney General.
   Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1976, Congress amended §101 of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U. S. C. § 636, to provide that a United States district judge may refer dispositive pretrial motions, and petitions for writ of habeas corpus, to a magistrate, who shall conduct appropriate proceedings and recommend dispositions. Pub. L. 94-577, 90 Stat. 2729. The amendments also provide that any party that disagrees with the magistrate’s recommendations "may serve and file written objections” to the magistrate’s report, and thus obtain de novo review by the district judge. The question presented is whether a court of appeals may exercise its supervisory powers to establish a rule that the failure to file objections to the magistrate’s report waives the right to appeal the district court’s judgment. We hold that it may.

b-i

Petitioner was convicted by an Ohio court m 1978 of fatally shooting her common-law husband during an argument. The evidence at trial showed that the victim was a violent man who had beaten petitioner on a number of occasions during the previous three years. Petitioner raised the issue of self-defense at trial, and sought to call two witnesses who would present expert testimony concerning the Battered Wife Syndrome. After conducting a voir dire of these witnesses in chambers, the trial court refused to admit the testimony, on the grounds that the jury did not need the assistance of expert testimony to understand the case and that the witnesses, who had not personally examined petitioner, could not testify about her state of mind at the time of the shooting.

The Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County reversed. State v. Thomas, 64 Ohio App. 2d 141, 411 N. E. 2d 845 (1979). The court’s syllabus concluded that testimony concerning the Battered Wife Syndrome is admissible “to afford the jury an understanding of the defendant’s state of mind at the time she committed the homicide.” App. 9. The Ohio Supreme Court, on discretionary review, reversed. State v. Thomas, 66 Ohio St. 2d 518, 423 N. E. 2d 137 (1981). The court held that the testimony was irrelevant to the issue of self-defense, and that its prejudicial effect would outweigh its probative value. Having exhausted state remedies, petitioner sought habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The petition raised, inter alia, the question whether petitioner was denied a fair trial by the trial court’s refusal to admit testimony concerning the Battered Wife Syndrome. Petitioner filed a memorandum of law in support of the petition. The District Judge, acting pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 636(b)(1)(B), referred the case, including petitioner’s memorandum of law, to a Magistrate. The Magistrate did not hold a hearing. On May 11, 1982, the Magistrate issued his report, containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommending that the writ be denied. On the issue of the Battered Wife Syndrome testimony, the Magistrate concluded that the trial court’s failure to admit the proffered testimony had not impaired the fundamental fairness of the trial, and therefore was not an adequate ground for habeas corpus relief.

The last page of the Magistrate’s report contained the prominent legend:

“ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Courts within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See: United States v. Walters, 638 F. 2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).”

Despite this clear notice, petitioner failed to file objections at any time. She sought and received an extension of time to file objections through June 15, 1982, on the grounds that “this case entails many substantive issues and counsel needs more time to write his brief.” However, petitioner made no further submissions on the merits to the District Court. Notwithstanding petitioner’s failure to file objections, the District Judge sua sponte “review[ed] . . . the entire record de novo,” App. 59, and dismissed the petition on the merits. Petitioner sought and was granted leave to appeal.

Petitioner’s brief on appeal raised only the issue of the Battered Wife Syndrome testimony. The brief provided no explanation for petitioner’s failure to object to the Magistrate’s report. Counsel for petitioner waived oral argument, and the case was decided on the briefs. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. 728 F. 2d 813 (1984). Without reaching the merits, it held that petitioner had waived the right to appeal by failing to file objections to the Magistrate’s report. Id., at 815. The court relied upon its prior decision in United States v. Walters, 638 F. 2d 947 (1981), which established the prospective rule that failure to file timely objections with the district court waives subsequent review in the court of appeals. We granted the petition for a writ of cer-tiorari, 470 U. S. 1027 (1985), and we now affirm.

I — 1 1 — I

In United States v. Walters, supra, the appellant failed to object to the Magistrate’s report, and the District Court adopted that report as its disposition of the case. The appellant then brought an appeal. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit considered the threshold question whether the appellant’s failure to apprise the District Court of its disagreement with the Magistrate’s recommendation waived the right to appeal. The court held:

“The permissive language of 28 U. S. C. §636 suggests that a party’s failure to file objections is not a waiver of appellate review. However, the fundamental congressional policy underlying the Magistrate’s Act — to improve access to the federal courts and aid the efficient administration of justice — is best served by our holding that a party shall file objections with the district court or else waive right to appeal. Additionally, through the exercise of our supervisory power, we hold that a party shall be informed by the magistrate that objections must be filed within ten days or further appeal is waived.
“However, we give our ruling only prospective effect because rules of procedure should promote, not defeat the ends of justice . . . .” Id., at 949-950 (footnote and citations omitted).

The nature of the rule and its prospective application demonstrate that the court intended to adopt a “rul[e] of procedure,” id., at 950, in the exercise of its supervisory powers. Later opinions of the Sixth Circuit make it clear that the court views Walters in this way. See Patterson v. Mintzes, 717 F. 2d 284, 286 (1983) (“In Walters . . . this Court promulgated [a] rule of waiver”); United States v. Martin, 704 F. 2d 267, 275 (1983) (Jones, J., concurring) (characterizing Wal ters as “[rjulemaking through the exercise of supervisory-powers”). Thus, petitioner’s first contention — that the Court of Appeals has refused to exercise the jurisdiction that Congress granted it — is simply inaccurate. The Court of Appeals expressly acknowledged that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over petitioner’s appeal. 728 F. 2d, at 814. The Sixth Circuit has also shown that its rule is not jurisdictional by excusing the procedural default in a recent case. See Patterson v. Mintzes, supra (considering appeal on merits despite pro se litigant’s late filing of objections). We therefore conclude that neither the intent nor the practical effect of the Sixth Circuit’s waiver rule is to restrict the court’s own jurisdiction.

I — I HH hH

It cannot be doubted that the courts of appeals have supervisory powers that permit, at the least, the promulgation of procedural rules governing the management of litigation. Cf. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335, 346, n. 10 (1980) (approving exercise of supervisory powers to require district court inquiry concerning joint representation of criminal defendants). Indeed, this Court has acknowledged the power of the courts of appeals to mandate “procedures deemed desirable from the viewpoint of sound judicial practice although in nowise commanded by statute or by the Constitution.” Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U. S. 141, 146 (1973); see also Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 530, n. 29 (1972). Had petitioner failed to comply with a scheduling order or pay a filing fee established by a court of appeals, that court could certainly dismiss the appeal. Cf. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U. S. 626 (1962) (recognizing “inherent power” of court to dismiss case for want of prosecution). The fact that the Sixth Circuit has deemed petitioner to have forfeited her statutory right to an appeal is not enough, standing alone, to invalidate the court’s exercise of its supervisory power.

The Sixth Circuit’s decision to require the filing of objections is supported by sound considerations of judicial economy. The filing of objections to a magistrate’s report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues — factual and legal — that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute. The Sixth Circuit’s rule, by precluding appellate review of any issue not contained in objections, prevents a litigant from “sandbagging” the district judge by failing to object and then appealing. Absent such a rule, any issue before the magistrate would be a proper subject for appellate review. This would either force the court of appeals to consider claims that were never reviewed by the district court, or force the district court to review every issue in every case, no matter how thorough the magistrate’s analysis and even if both parties were satisfied with the magistrate’s report. Either result would be an inefficient use of judicial resources. In short, “[t]he same rationale that prevents a party from raising an issue before a circuit court of appeals that was not raised before the district court applies here.” United States v. Schronce, 727 F. 2d 91, 94 (CA4) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 467 U. S. 1208 (1984).

IV

Even a sensible and efficient use of the supervisory power, however, is invalid if it conflicts with constitutional or statutory provisions. A contrary result “would confer on the judiciary discretionary power to disregard the considered limitations of the law it is charged with enforcing.” United States v. Payner, 447 U. S. 727, 737 (1980). Thus we now consider whether the Sixth Circuit’s waiver rule conflicts with statutory law or with the Constitution.

A

Petitioner argues that the Federal Magistrates Act precludes the waiver rule adopted by the Sixth Circuit. Her argument focuses on the permissive nature of the statutory language. The statute provides that a litigant “may” file objections, and nowhere states that the failure to do so will waive an appeal. Petitioner cites the Eighth Circuit’s conclusion that “[o]ne would think that if Congress had wished such a drastic consequence to follow from the missing of the ten-day time limit, it would have said so explicitly.” Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., 700 F. 2d 1202, 1206 (1983). However, we need not decide whether the Act mandates a waiver of appellate review absent objections. We hold only that it does not forbid such a rule.

Section 636(b)(1)(C) provides that “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” The statute does not on its face require any review at all, by either the district court or the court of appeals, of any issue that is not the subject of-an objection. Petitioner argues, however, that the statutory language and purpose implicitly require the district court to review a magistrate’s report even if no party objects. If petitioner’s interpretation of the statute is correct, then the waiver of appellate review, as formulated by the Sixth and other Circuits, proceeds from an erroneous assumption— that the failure to object may constitute a procedural default waiving review even at the district court level. Moreover, were the district judge required to review the magistrate’s report in every case, the waiver of appellate review would not promote judicial economy as discussed in Part III, supra.

Petitioner first argues that a failure to object waives only de novo review, and that the district judge must still review the magistrate’s report under some lesser standard. However, § 636(b)(1)(C) simply does not provide for such review. This omission does not seem to be inadvertent, because Congress provided for a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review of a magistrate’s disposition of certain pretrial matters in § 636(b)(1)(A). See Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F. 2d 603, 605 (CA1 1980). Nor does petitioner point to anything in the legislative history of the 1976 amendments mandating review under some lesser standard. We are therefore not persuaded that the statute positively requires some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed.

Petitioner also argues that, under the Act, the obligatory filing of objections extends only to findings of fact. She urges that Congress, in order to vest final authority over questions of law in an Article III judge, intended that the district judge would automatically review the magistrate’s conclusions of law. We reject, however, petitioner’s distinction between factual and legal issues. Once again, the plain language of the statute recognizes no such distinction. We also fail to find such a requirement in the legislative history.

It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings. The House and Senate Reports accompanying the 1976 amendments do not expressly consider what sort of review the district court should perform when no party objects to the magistrate’s report. See S. Rep. No. 94-625, pp. 9-10 (1976) (hereafter Senate Report); H. R. Rep. No. 94-1609, p. 11 (1976) (hereafter House Report). There is nothing in those Reports, however, that demonstrates an intent to require the district court to give any more consideration to the magistrate’s report than the court considers appropriate. Moreover, the Subcommittee that drafted and held hearings on the 1976 amendments had before it the guidelines of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts concerning the efficient use of magistrates. Those guidelines recommended to the district courts that “[w]here a magistrate makes a finding or ruling on a motion or an issue, his determination should become that of the district court, unless specific objection is filed within a reasonable time.” See Jurisdiction of United States Magistrates, Hearings on S. 1283 before the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 24 (1975) (emphasis added) (hereafter Senate Hearings). The Committee also heard Judge Metzner of the Southern District of New York, the chairman of a Judicial Conference Committee on the administration of the magistrate system, testify that he personally followed that practice. See id., at 11 (“If any objections come in,... I review [the record] and decide it. If no objections come in, I merely sign the magistrate’s order”). The Judicial Conference of the United States, which supported the de novo standard of review eventually incorporated in § 636(b)(1)(C), opined that in most instances no party would object to the magistrate’s recommendation, and the litigation would terminate with the judge’s adoption of the magistrate’s report. See Senate Hearings, at 35, 37. Congress apparently assumed, therefore, that any party who was dissatisfied for any reason with the magistrate’s report would file objections, and those objections would trigger district court review. There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed. It did not preclude treating the failure to object as a procedural default, waiving the right to further consideration of any sort. We thus find nothing in the statute or the legislative history that convinces us that Congress intended to forbid a rule such as the one adopted by the Sixth Circuit.

Nor is the waiver of appellate review inconsistent with the purposes of the Act. The Act grew out of Congress’ desire to give district judges “additional assistance” in dealing with a caseload that was increasing far more rapidly than the number of judgeships. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U. S. 261, 268 (1976). Congress did not intend district judges “to devote a substantial portion of their available time to various procedural steps rather than to the trial itself.” House Report, at 7. Nor does the legislative history indicate that Congress intended this task merely to be transferred to the court of appeals. It seems clear that Congress would not have wanted district judges to devote time to reviewing magistrate’s reports except to the extent that such review is requested by the parties or otherwise necessitated by Article III of the Constitution. We now turn to the latter question.

B

Petitioner contends that the waiver of appellate review violates Article III and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Article III vests the judicial power of the United States in judges who have life tenure and protection from decreases in salary. Although a magistrate is not an Article III judge, this Court has held that a district court may refer dispositive motions to a magistrate for a recommendation so long as “the entire process takes place under the district court’s total control and jurisdiction,” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U. S. 667, 681 (1980), and the judge “‘exercisets] the ultimate authority to issue an appropriate order,”’ id., at 682, quoting Senate Report, at 3. The Sixth Circuit’s rule, as petitioner sees it, permits a magistrate to exercise the Article III judicial power, because the rule forecloses meaningful review of a magistrate’s report at both the district and appellate levels if no objections are filed.

We find that argument untenable. The waiver of appellate review does not implicate Article III, because it is the district court, not the court of appeals, that must exercise supervision over the magistrate. Even assuming, however, that the effect of the Sixth Circuit’s rule is to permit both the district judge and the court of appeals to refuse to review a magistrate’s report absent timely objection, we do not believe that the rule elevates the magistrate from an adjunct to the functional equivalent of an Article III judge. The rule merely establishes a procedural default that has no effect on the magistrate’s or the court’s jurisdiction. The district judge has jurisdiction over the case at all times. He retains full authority to decide whether to refer a case to the magistrate, to review the magistrate’s report, and to enter judgment. Any party that desires plenary consideration by the Article III judge of any issue need only ask. Moreover, while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard. Indeed, in the present case, the District Judge made a de novo determination of the petition despite petitioner’s failure even to suggest that the Magistrate erred. The Sixth Circuit’s rule, therefore, has not removed “ ‘the essential attributes of the judicial power,’” Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50, 77 (1982) (plurality opinion), quoting Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 51 (1932), from the Article III tribunal.

Petitioner claims also that she was denied her statutory-right of appeal, in violation of the Due Process Clause. That right was not denied, however; it was merely conditioned upon the filing of a piece of paper. Petitioner was notified in unambiguous terms of the consequences of a failure to file, and deliberately failed to file nevertheless. We recently reiterated our longstanding maxim that “the State certainly accords due process when it terminates a claim for failure to comply with a reasonable procedural or evidentiary rule.” Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U. S. 422, 437 (1982). The same rationale applies to the forfeiture of an appeal, and we believe that the Sixth Circuit’s rule is reasonable. Litigants subject to the Sixth Circuit’s rule are afforded “‘an opportunity . . . granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,’” ibid., quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545, 552 (1965), to obtain a hearing by the Court of Appeals. We also emphasize that, because the rule is a nonjurisdictional waiver provision, the Court of Appeals may excuse the default in the interests of justice.

V

We hold that a court of appeals may adopt a rule conditioning appeal, when taken from a district court judgment that adopts a magistrate’s recommendation, upon the filing of objections with the district court identifying those issues on which further review is desired. Such a rule, at least when it incorporates clear notice to the litigants and an opportunity to seek an extension of time for filing objections, is a valid exercise of the supervisory power that does not violate either the Federal Magistrates Act or the Constitution. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

Justice Brennan,

with whom Justice Blackmun joins, dissenting.

Under the rule adopted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and sanctioned by this Court, a party waives his right to appeal the judgment of the district court by failing to file timely objections to a magistrate’s report. Because this rule conflicts with the plain language of the Federal Magistrate’s Act, I dissent.

The Magistrate’s Act states that “any party may serve and file written objections to [the magistrate’s] proposed findings and recommendations. ... A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U. S. C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Act clearly specifies the penalty for a party’s failure to file objections to the magistrate’s report — the party loses his right to de novo review by the district court. The Act does not require a party to file objections. And it does not, contrary to the Sixth Circuit’s rule, provide that a party’s failure to file objections deprives him of the right to any review by the district court, or by the court of appeals. Rather, the district court judge retains the power, and indeed the obligation, to “accept, reject, or modify” the magistrate’s findings and recommendations. 28 U. S. C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Act leaves unaffected a party’s right to appeal the judgment of the district court to the court of appeals.

A habeas applicant is entitled to appeal only the final order of the district court. 28 U. S. C. §2253. I fail to understand how petitioner could have waived her right to appeal a final order before that order was rendered. The majority attempts to justify this result by characterizing the Sixth Circuit’s rule as a simple exercise of its supervisory powers. While I do not question the Court of Appeals’ authority to promulgate reasonable procedural rules, I would not sanction a rule that imposes a penalty for failure to file objections beyond that contemplated by Congress. Because the Sixth Circuit’s “supervisory rule” unlawfully deprives petitioner of her statutory right to appeal the District Court’s judgment, I respectfully dissent.

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

The waiver rule adopted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is neither required nor prohibited by the Federal Magistrates Act. As a product of that court’s supervisory power, it need not conform to the practice followed in other circuits. Hence, despite the appearance of a conflict among the circuits, the interest in uniform interpretation of federal law is not implicated and this Court might have been well advised simply to deny the petition for certio-rari. Since the Court has elected to review the application of the Sixth Circuit’s rule, however, I believe it should modify it in one respect.

As the Court demonstrates, in most cases it is surely permissible to treat the failure to file timely objections to a magistrate’s report as a waiver of the right to review, not only in the district court, but in the court of appeals as well. But our precedents often recognize an exception to waiver rules — namely, when a reviewing court decides the merits of an issue even though a procedural default relieved it of the duty to do so. See, e. g., Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U. S. 800, 815-816 (1985) (reaching merits despite failure to object to jury instruction because Court of Appeals overlooked default); On Lee v. United States, 343 U. S. 747, 750, n. 3 (1952) (“Though we think the Court of Appeals would have been within its discretion in refusing to consider the point, their having passed on it leads us to treat the merits also”). It is for this reason that we may disregard a procedural default in a state trial court if a state appellate court addresses the federal issue. E. g., Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U. S. 140, 149 (1979); Raley v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 423, 436-437 (1959). In such cases, the reasons for relying on the procedural default as a bar to further review are generally, if not always, outweighed by the interest in having the merits of the issue correctly resolved.

A similar exception should be recognized in this case. When the district court elects to exercise its power to review a magistrate’s report de novo and renders an opinion resolving an issue on the merits, there is no danger of “sandbagging” the district judge. See ante, at 148. Moreover, if the district judge has concluded that there is enough merit in a claim to warrant careful consideration and explanation despite the litigant’s failure to object before the magistrate, the interest in minimizing the risk of error should prevail over the interest in requiring strict compliance with procedural rules. Because the District Court decided the merits of petitioner’s claim in this case, I would hold that she has a right to review in the Court of Appeals. To that admittedly limited extent, I respectfully dissent.

       Title 28 U. S. C. § 636(b)(1)(B) provides:
      “[A] judge may also designate a magistrate to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion excepted in subparagraph (A), of applications for posttrial relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses and of prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement.”
      The motions excepted in § 636(b)(1)(A), and included by reference in subparagraph (B), are motions
      “for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action.”

       Title 28 U. S. C. § 636(b)(1)(C) provides:
      “[T]he magistrate shall file his proposed findings and recommendations under subparagraph (B) with the court and a copy shall forthwith be mailed to all parties.
      “Within ten days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions.”

       In Ohio, the court’s syllabus contains the controlling law. See Engle v. Isaac, 456 U. S. 107, 111, n. 3 (1982), citing Haas v. State, 103 Ohio St. 1, 7-8, 132 N. E. 158, 159-160 (1921).

         The First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Circuits have adopted waiver rules similar to the Sixth Circuit rule at issue in the present case. See Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F. 2d 603 (CA1 1980); McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F. 2d 234, 237 (CA2 1983); United States v. Schronce, 727 F. 2d 91 (CA4), cert. denied, 467 U. S. 1208 (1984); United States v. Lewis, 621 F. 2d 1382, 1386 (CA5 1980), cert. denied, 450 U. S. 935 (1981). The Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have concluded that the failure to file objections waives only factual issues on the appeal. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School District, 708 F. 2d 452, 454 (CA9 1983) (order denying petition for rehearing); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F. 2d 404 (CA5 1982) (en banc); but see Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., 700 F. 2d 1202, 1205-1207 (CA81983) (rejecting waiver rule, at least where parties had not been notified that failure to object would waive appeal). In none of these cases have the courts spoken in jurisdictional terms.

       This power rests on the firmest ground when used to establish rules of judicial procedure. See Beale, Reconsidering Supervisory Power in Criminal Cases: Constitutional and Statutory Limits on the Authority of the Federal Courts, 84 Colum. L. Rev. 1433, 1465 (1984) (federal courts have inherent authority to regulate “technical details and policies intrinsic to the litigation process”). The Courts of Appeals have often exercised that authority. See, e. g., Tingler v. Marshall, 716 F. 2d 1109, 1112 (CA6 1983) (establishing procedure for sua sponte dismissal of complaints); United States v. Florea, 541 F. 2d 568, 572 (CA6 1976) (prospective rule holding that contact between party’s agent and juror is per se prejudicial), cert. denied, 430 U. S. 945 (1977); United States v. Schiavo, 504 F. 2d 1, 7-8 (CA3) (en banc) (establishing procedures for enjoining publication of information concerning criminal trial), cert, denied sub nom. Ditter v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 419 U. S. 1096 (1974).

       In the present case, the filing of objections could have resulted in a considerable saving of judicial time. The original petition contained several grounds for relief, but on appeal petitioner raised only the issue of the admissibility of expert testimony on the Battered Wife Syndrome. Had petitioner objected only to that aspect of the Magistrate’s report, the Magistrate’s review would have served to narrow the dispute for the District Judge, and petitioner would have preserved her right to appeal the exclusion of her expert testimony.

       The Sixth Circuit, in Walters, cited with approval the First Circuit’s decision in Park Motor Mart, which held that “a party ‘may’ file objections within ten days or he may not, as he chooses, but he ‘shall’ do so if he wishes further consideration.” 616 F. 2d, at 605; see Walters, 638 F. 2d, at 950. See also McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F. 2d, at 237 (“When a party fails to object timely to a magistrate’s recommended decision, it waives any right to further judicial review of that decision”) (footnote and citation omitted).

       This is so even though the category of dispositive matters subject to de novo review by the district judge as of right only upon filing of objections includes motions for judgment on the pleadings and dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, which consist exclusively of issues of law. See n. 1, supra.

       Petitioner points to a passage in the House Report that quotes from Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F. 2d 196, 206 (CA9), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 879 (1974). The Ninth Circuit concluded: “If neither party contests the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact, the court may assume their correctness and decide the motion on the applicable law.” See House Report, at 3. However, that statement was part of a longer quotation setting a de novo review standard when objections are filed. The House Report stated that a House amendment, which called for de novo review in the same circumstances, was “adopted” from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Campbell. House Report, at 3. We believe, therefore, that the House Report used the language from Campbell only to support a de novo standard upon the filing of objections, and not for any other proposition.

       Indeed, Judge Metzner specifically addressed the difference between a magistrate’s ruling on a nondispositive motion, which Congress clearly “intended to be ‘final’ unless a judge of the court exercises his ultimate authority to reconsider the magistrate’s determination,” Senate Report, at 8, and a ruling on a dispositive motion. Judge Metzner concluded: “I think we are talking more about form, than we are of substance.” Senate Hearings, at 12.
      Moreover, both Judge Metzner and the Judicial Conference were of the opinion that Congress could probably vest magistrates with the authority to make a final decision on dispositive motions without violating Article III, and that the language of § 636(b)(1)(B), calling for the magistrate to make only recommendations on dispositive motions, was adopted out of an abundance of caution. See Senate Hearings, at 6 (statement of Judge Metzner); id., at 35 (report of Judicial Conference of the United States). While we express no view on the accuracy of those opinions, we think they are relevant to Congress’ intent. See also House Report, at 8 (“it is not feasible for every judicial act, at every stage of the proceeding, to be performed by ‘a judge of the court’ ”).

       See Senate Hearings, at 32 (statement of William P. Westphal, Chief Counsel) (filing objections as provided in the statute “is the procedure for them to follow, if they feel aggrieved by any of these motions”).

       The 1976 amendments were prompted by this Court’s decision in Wingo v. Wedding, 418 U. S. 461 (1974). That case held that Congress had not intended, in enacting the Federal Magistrates Act in 1968, to permit a magistrate to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a habeas corpus petition. Congress enacted the 1976 amendments to “restat[e] and clarif[y]” Congress’ intent to permit magistrates to hold evidentiary hearings and perform other judicial functions. See Senate Report, at 3.

       Article III, § 1, of the Constitution provides:
      “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

       The plurality in Northern Pipeline, and the concurrence in Raddatz, noted that the magistrate himself remains under the district court’s authority. The magistrate is appointed, and subject to removal, by the district court. See Northern Pipeline, 458 U. S., at 79, and n. 30; Raddatz, 447 U. S., at 685 (Blackmun, J., concurring) (“[T]he only conceivable danger of a ‘threat’ to the ‘independence’ of the magistrate comes from within, rather than without, the judicial department”). Those observations, of course, are also relevant here, and again weigh on the side of concluding that a magistrate remains an adjunct even though the district court and the court of appeals may refuse to entertain issues that are not raised in properly filed objections.

       Cf. Fed. Rule Crim. Proe. 520)) (court may correct plain error despite failure of party to object). We need not decide at this time what standards the courts of appeals must apply in considering exceptions to their waiver rules.

      The absence of an objection cannot “reliev[e] the district court of its obligation to act judicially, to decide for itself whether the Magistrate’s report is correct.” Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., 700 F. 2d 1202, 1206 (CA8 1983).