Supreme Court Finds EPA Not Above the Law

[LYIN' KING]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jason Heffley

March 21, 2012 O -202.226.0518

Supreme Court Finds EPA Not Above the Law

Western Caucus Chairmen Congratulate the Sacketts
on Their Historic Supreme Court Victory


WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressional Western Caucus Chairman Steve Pearce (R-NM) and Senate Western Caucus Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) released the following statements in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling today in the case Sackett v. EPA (attached):

“I would like to congratulate Mike and Chantell on their historic victory today. I would also like to thank to them for their courage and resolve in seeing this case through until the end. Unfortunately, it is not always easy for ordinary citizens to fight back when the federal government overreaches its authority. However, today, the Sacketts and the Supreme Court once again reaffirmed that the EPA is not above the law,” said Pearce.

“Today, the Supreme Court affirmed what the Sacketts, Congress and Westerners have stated all along – there are limits to the EPA’s authority. This decision delivers a devastating blow to the Obama Administration’s ‘War on Western Jobs.’ This victory by one western couple against a massive Washington bureaucracy will inspire others to challenge this Administration’s regulatory overreach,” said Barrasso.

Mike and Chantell are small business owners from Priest Lake, ID. They wanted to build a family home near Priest Lake. After following all the proper local permitting requirements, they received their building permit in 2007 and began work on their home. Soon thereafter, the EPA ordered the Sacketts to stop their work, restore the land, and apply for a federal wetlands permit if they wished build there, or face thousands of dollars in fines. Even though there is no standing water on their property, the Sacketts were provided no recourse to appeal this order. The Sacketts ultimately filed suit against the EPA for denying them due process; the case was argued before the Supreme Court in January 2012 and decided unanimously in their favor today.

Mike and Chantell Sackett testified before the Joint Congressional and Senate Western Caucus hearing in Washington DC on February 28, 2012.

See testimony: Sackett's Opening Statement @ Senate Western Caucus Hearing - YouTube

[ABearden]

Nice!

[BenE]

good on them

[Mad Machinist]

A unanimous decision establishes a VERY serious precedent.

[Bebe]

Wicked cool ....now I hope the Rubicon folks take note of this...I'll pass it along.

[Mad Machinist]

Dominoes, Bebe, Dominoes.

[nahmus]

Originally Posted by Mad Machinist

Dominoes, Bebe, Dominoes.

she does not look hungry in her pic...

[Tigerchief]

Glad they won, but that press release is fucked up and twisted.

[gmcz7198]

This is awesome! Now will the EPA listen to the court?

[Camarogenius]

Originally Posted by gmcz7198

This is awesome! Now will the EPA listen to the court?

Are you being sarcastic?

Right now, Eric Holder is going through this with a fine tooth comb, and obama is writing an executive order.

[Mikel]

I hope all the costs incurred by the costs incurred by the those two guys are paid - not by the EPA - but out of the pockets of the EPA officials who went past their authority. Those people should not be protected.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by Mikel

I hope all the costs incurred by the costs incurred by the those two guys are paid - not by the EPA - but out of the pockets of the EPA officials who went past their authority. Those people should not be protected.

Think EAJA . . .

[atvobsession]

Sure could have used this information when I was writing the Rubicon DEIS. Calling the Winter Camp area a wetlands is a joke.

[ErikB]

Originally Posted by Mad Machinist

A unanimous decision establishes a VERY serious precedent.

F- yeah!

[randii]

More below... I especially like the part where Justice Alito "urged Congress to adopt new legislation clarifying the reach of the Clean Water Act."

U.S. top court backs landowners, limits power of EPA

5:11pm EDT
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that landowners can sue to challenge a federal government compliance order under the clean water law, a decision that sides with corporate groups and puts new limits on a key Environmental Protection Agency power.
The justices unanimously rejected the government's position that individuals or companies must first fail to comply with an EPA order and face potentially costly enforcement action before a court can review the case. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia was a victory for an Idaho couple who challenged a 2007 EPA order that required them to restore a wetland they had filled with dirt and rock as they began to build a new vacation home near Priest Lake. They were also told to stop construction on the home.
The couple, Chantell and Michael Sackett, denied their property had ever contained a wetland and complained they were being forced to comply with an order without a court hearing. Their appeal drew support from the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Home Builders and General Electric Co, a company that had made a similar challenge to the EPA compliance orders. The Supreme Court's ruling comes at a time when the EPA has faced fierce criticism from many Republicans in Congress who say it has issued the most ambitious clean air regulations in decades and has become heavy-handed in enforcement actions. Scalia concluded the Sacketts may bring a civil lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act to challenge the EPA's order. He said that since the EPA's decision was final and the couple faced potential large fines, they had no other adequate remedy but to bring a civil lawsuit. Reading his decision from the bench, Scalia said that the Clean Water Act does not prevent judicial review of such orders. Under the law, violations of the Clean Water Act can result in fines of up to $37,500 per day, plus as much as an additional $37,500 per day for violating the EPA compliance order. The EPA issues nearly 3,000 compliance orders a year that require accused violators of environmental laws to stop alleged harmful actions and repair any damage that was caused. The justices overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that a compliance order was not subject to judicial review until later when the EPA has brought an enforcement action and seeks to have a judge rule in its favor.

'DAY IN COURT'
The court did not reach the broader question of whether the EPA's order violated the constitutional right of due process. It only held that the Administrative Procedures Act, which provides certain rules for federal regulatory agencies, applied. Scalia said that the Sacketts would not get an adequate remedy if they had to apply to the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit and then file suit if that permit was denied. He said the Clean Water Act was not "uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into 'voluntary compliance' without the opportunity for judicial review." Scalia concluded the 10-page opinion by saying the EPA's orders will remain an effective way to secure prompt, voluntary compliance in the many cases when there was no substantial basis to question their validity. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a short separate opinion concurring in the outcome. He said allowing property owners to sue was better than nothing, but urged Congress to adopt new legislation clarifying the reach of the Clean Water Act. Government attorneys had defended the compliance orders as a quick way to stop environmental damage and argued that allowing accused polluters to get a court hearing would tie the EPA up in lengthy litigation. An attorney for the Sacketts argued that they should not have to wait for years for judicial review until the EPA decides to go to court and said the compliance order was coercive, requiring action to avoid potentially huge fines.
Damien Schiff, the attorney for the couple, hailed the ruling. "EPA is not above the law," he said. "That's the bottom line with today's ruling. This is a great day for Mike and Chantell Sackett, because it confirms that EPA can't deny them access to justice. EPA can't repeal the Sacketts' fundamental right to their day in court," he said. Jon Devine, senior attorney in the water program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the EPA still can issue compliance orders. "The Supreme Court did not give anyone a license to pollute. Pure and simple. Those who pollute our waters will still be held accountable," he said. The ruling "grants recipients of such orders, at a time of their choosing, a day in court to challenge them to promote speedy resolution of pollution problems."
The Supreme Court case is Sackett v EPA, No. 10-1062.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82K0YT20120321

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by atvobsession

Sure could have used this information when I was writing the Rubicon DEIS. Calling the Winter Camp area a wetlands is a joke.

LOL I posted a link to it in the thread.

[LYIN' KING]

Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter [newsletter@gov.idaho.gov]


U.S. Supreme Court sides with Idaho couple in their fight with the EPA


It's rare to hear anything that sounds like "common-sense" coming from inside the Beltway in Washington. One of those rare occasions came this week when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Sackett versus the EPA. Mike and Chantell Sackett of Priest Lake won a unanimous decision from the nation's highest court after a lengthy legal fight against the Environmental Protection Agency over enforcement actions under the Clean Water Act. Shortly after the decision was made public, I released the following statement to help celebrate their triumph:


"I applaud the Sacketts for their diligence and civic virtue in pursuing redress of their grievance against the Environmental Protection Agency all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is unfortunate it took this long, and that it required a decision from our highest court, to resolve what I consider to be a fairly simple issue - American citizens are guaranteed certain rights and protections when dealing with the federal government, and that is never truer than when those dealings involve private property. This decision should serve as a clarion call to Congress, and I look forward to continue working with Idaho's delegation, to develop common-sense restrictions on how the EPA implements the Clean Water Act. We must use this ruling as a rallying point in a renewed commitment to reining in this runaway federal agency."

[LYIN' KING]

“Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency”

Winning one skirmish in a battle or one battle in a war does not end the war.

Are the Sacketts now sitting comfortably in front of a fireplace in their new home at its original location free from further challenging legal issues due to this highly touted victory? Umm, no!

“The Sacketts needed total RELIEF from the EPA, but they didn't get it. They may never get a chance to build their home.”

Will they ever? It depends on whether they have the resolve and means to finish the battle and ultimately try to win the war

Will the PLF remain engaged and see it through to the end? I have no idea!

The highly touted victory still leaves this . . .

“From this ruling, all it does is allow the Sacketts to challenge EPA's wetland compliance order in court. The compliance order still stands and the Sacketts now will have to file a legal complaint in a trial court under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), challenging EPA's ruling. They still have a long way to go before they are out of the woods against EPA. More expert witnesses, more attorneys, more money and more time. The EPA will still be on their backs and the Sacketts will still have to defend themselves ...... in court.”

As PERC explains . . .

“Mike and Chantell Sackett were stuck. Complying with EPA demands meant paying to throw away their property. If they ignored the EPA they would be liable for massive fines that would obviously bankrupt them and they could be subject to criminal liability.

The Sacketts bought a lot near Priest Lake in northern Idaho in 2005 for $23,000. They planned to build a home on the site pictured above in an area with many houses already. Homes and a road existed between their lot and the lake, which is 500 feet away. They rounded up needed permits and began work in the subdivision.

The EPA uncovered this assault on a bit of dirt and in 2007 declared their lot was a wetland. The Sacketts were ordered to cease construction on the half-acre parcel. EPA told them the area was a wetland that could not be changed without its permission. It ordered them to remove the gravel that had been dumped on the lot (at a cost of $27,000), to restore the vegetation to what existed previously, to fence off the property, and to file annual reports about the condition of the property. The Sacketts were threatened with fines up to $32,500 per day until they were in compliance and ceased the wanton environmental destruction. (EPA also claims the right to double the fine to $75,000 per day when it prevails—and it declared that it had prevailed because it said it had prevailed.)

The Sacketts sued, seeking a declaration that the property was not a wetland. It is not on the lakeshore and has no creek running through it. It gets wet only when it rains. The federal district court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Sacketts could not go to court until the EPA requested a federal court to enforce their order. The courts held that courts could not review compliance orders of the EPA and that there was no violation of the Sacketts’ due process rights.

The Pacific Legal Foundation took the case to the Supreme Court for them, arguing that they had the right to have the matter heard in federal court. Reversing another decision from the Ninth Circuit, the Court held unanimously for the Sacketts. The Court did not address the wetland issue. The point of the case is one of administrative procedure.

The Court held that the Sacketts had the right to contest the EPA order as “arbitrary” and “capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act. The EPA deprived them of their due process right. Since the EPA order was a “final agency action” the Sacketts had the right to go to court to challenge the agency. There was no other remedy. Courts can review the actions of agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act to ensure that its requirements have been followed properly by the agency. The agency cannot simply declare victory, impose fines, and the party subject to the ruling have no chance to appeal to the courts.

While the Sacketts gained satisfaction and a bit of fame from a Supreme Court win, don’t bet they ever get to build their house. Unless EPA rolls over, the Sacketts have merely won an administrative point. It may be back to the same agency and courts that spit on them before.

Some years ago beachfront property owners in California and South Carolina won noteworthy victories against state agencies that basically took their property via the regulatory process. The agencies were not pleased that mere citizens embarrassed them before the high court and then drug the parties through the administrative mud for years after the high court decisions. The final results were not the “victories” for the abused citizens that we tend to presume. Agencies have the taxpayer purse to finance their proceedings and more litigation. Homeowners such as the Sacketts have pockets a bit less deep.

As Justice Alito noted in this case, “real relief” must come from Congress. The Clean Water Act does not contain clear rules regarding procedure. No one really knows what is a wetland. The EPA takes advantage of the lack of clarity and, like any bureaucracy, grabs power. This is the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act. As Congress has not seen fit to clean it up over the decades, it is unlikely to do so now.”

[chicago]

Still... Seems to be some headway in a seemingly endless battle!!
The people are getting TIRED of laying down and taking this shit and are finally fighting back!!
I subscribe (recently) to a couple of mountain bike publications... They too have an editors segment... I'll tell you, that the typical topic is RESTRICTIONS AND TRAIL CLOSURES!!!
They too are fighting this battle along with us.
The numbers and support are out there! If only we could get it ALL ALIGNED!!!!

[chicago]

Thanks for the post!!!

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by chicago

Still... Seems to be some headway in a seemingly endless battle!!
The people are getting TIRED of laying down and taking this shit and are finally fighting back!!
I subscribe (recently) to a couple of mountain bike publications... They too have an editors segment... I'll tell you, that the typical topic is RESTRICTIONS AND TRAIL CLOSURES!!!
They too are fighting this battle along with us.
The numbers and support are out there! If only we could get it ALL ALIGNED!!!!

Keith,

What many of us have learned, is that people don't event get it, let alone get involved until they go to their favorite spot and find a gate.

So in reality, until it affects them, they have no idea. The MB crowd have been approached by 4x4 groups many times, warned and asked to join...nothing, we got nothing.

We have what we have now because even though the gates are going up, we aren't giving up.

[chicago]

Originally Posted by Bebe

Keith,

What many of us have learned, is that people don't event get it, let alone get involved until they go to their favorite spot and find a gate.

So in reality, until it affects them, they have no idea. The MB crowd have been approached by 4x4 groups many times, warned and asked to join...nothing, we got nothing.

We have what we have now because even though the gates are going up, we aren't giving up.

Well...I have admitted this before, but I had my head buried for several years and it took a slap of reality to open my eyes. I researched REI on line which led me to look into Sierra Club...I was ASTOUNDED at how big of an institution that was!!! It was then I realized that SC wasnt some little club (like most of us belong to), but rather a well funded and politically backed organization. I woke up then!!!
Seems as though the MB crowd are getting the same ass kicking and becoming aware of whats at stake.

Keith

[LYIN' KING]

Mountain Bikers . . . REALLY?

Motorized users of Public Lands number nearly 1/5th of the entire population in our once great Nation.

No, they are not all OHV enthusiasts, however . . . the MB folks don’t peddle all the way to their favorite play grounds anymore than hikers walk to favorite trail heads, anglers to fishing destinations, rock hounds to their areas, bird watchers to theirs etc . . . ad Nauseam, ad Infinitum.. . . cum awn!!!