In Hanousek v. United States (2000) 28 U.S. 1102, the Supreme Court rejected a petition for writ of certiorari in a case in which the Ninth Circuit determined that the CWA is a public welfare statute. In The Supreme Court denied certiorari, but Justice Thomas and O'Connor dissented from the denial and wrote to express concern that the Ninth Circuit based its decision in part on its conclusion that the CWA was a public welfare statute. Noting that the circuits were divided on the subject, Justice Thomas wrote, and O'Connor joined, that certiorari should be granted to delineate that the public welfare doctrine does not apply if it would expose countless numbers of people to heightened criminal liability for using ordinary devices to engage in normal industrial operations. The Supreme Court found that "even dangerous items can, in some cases, be so commonplace and generally available that their regulation would not fall within the public welfare doctrine"