Term: 2011
Docket: 10-1062
Chantell Sackett, Et Vir, Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, Et Al.
- Pro
10-1062 SACKETT V. EPA DECISION BELOW: 622 F.3d 1139 LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1. MAY PETITIONERS SEEK PRE- ENFORCEMENT JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE ORDER PURSUANT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 5 U. S. C. §704? 2. IF NOT, DOES PETITIONERS’ INABILITY TO SEEK PRE-ENFORCEMENT JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE ORDER VIOLATE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE? CERT. GRANTED 6/28/2011 QUESTION PRESENTED: Chantell and Michael Sackett own a small lot in a built-out residential subdivision that they graded to build a home. Thereafter, the Sacketts received an Administrative Compliance Order from the Environmental Protection Agency claiming that they filled a jurisdictional wetland without a federal permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. At great cost, and under threat of civil fines of tens of thousands of dollars per day, as well as possible criminal penalties, the Sacketts were ordered to remove all fill, replace any lost vegetation, and monitor the fenced-off site for three years. The Sacketts were provided no evidentiary hearing or opportunity to contest the order. And, the lower courts have refused to address the Sacketts' claim that the lot is not subject to federal jurisdiction. Do Petitioners have a right to judicial review of an Administrative Compliance Order issued without hearing or any proof of violation under Section 309(a)(3) of the Clean Water Act? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-35854
In the case of Chantell Sackett, et vir v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, who were challenging a compliance order issued by EPA under Section 309 of Clean Water Act. The Sacketts had purchased a residential lot near Priest Lake in Idaho and began filling it with dirt and rock for construction when they received an administrative compliance order from EPA stating that their property contained wetlands and was subject to federal regulation under Clean Water Act. They were ordered to restore the site or face penalties up to $37,500 per day for non-compliance. The Sacketts sought judicial review but lower courts dismissed their suit on grounds that such orders are not subject to pre-enforcement judicial review. The Supreme Court unanimously held that landowners have a right to direct, meaningful judicial review if EPA asserts jurisdiction over their property under Clean Water Act because such orders determine rights or obligations from which legal consequences will flow and thus constitute final agency action.
In the dissenting opinion for the Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency case, Justice Ginsburg argued that the court's decision was premature and potentially harmful to environmental protection efforts. She contended that under existing law, compliance orders like those issued by EPA are not final agency actions subject to judicial review until they have been enforced through a civil action in court. By allowing immediate challenges to such orders before enforcement proceedings begin, she warned that this could undermine the effectiveness of EPA’s regulatory scheme designed to protect water quality and public health from unregulated discharges of pollutants into waters covered by Clean Water Act (CWA). Furthermore, she pointed out that there were still unresolved questions about whether or not their property contained 'navigable waters' as defined by CWA which should be addressed first before deciding on other issues raised in this case.
