3/21/2012

Supreme Court unanimously rules against the EPA in Sackett v. EPA

It is pretty amazing that the Supreme Court got an unanimous decision in any property rights case, though what the court's decision does is quite limited. The decision also has some pretty strong language (see bold below).

The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy. The EPA may issue a compliance order demanding that the owners cease construction, engage in expensive remedial measures, and abandon any use of the property. If the owners do not do the EPA’s bidding, they may be fined up to $75,000 per day ($37,500 for violating the Act and another $37,500 for violating the compliance order). And if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad. Until the EPA sues them, they are blocked from access to the courts, and the EPA may wait as long as it wants before deciding to sue. By that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the millions. In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable.
The Court’s decision provides a modest measure of relief. At least, property owners like petitioners will have the right to challenge the EPA’s jurisdictional determination under the Administrative Procedure Act. But the combination of the uncertain reach of the Clean Water Act and the draconian penalties imposed for the sort of violations alleged in this case still leaves most property owners with little practical alternative but to dance to the EPA’s tune.
Real relief requires Congress to do what it should have done in the first place: provide a reasonably clear rule regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act. . . .

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger Rob K said...

That sounds almost like an invitation from the Court for someone to sue to overturn the Clean Water Act as unconstitutionally vague.

3/21/2012 4:51 PM  
Blogger Good Greg said...

So, we know that Congress won't do anything to fix it, so how long do you think it will take before we have an executive order making an end run around it? Bet that at least two justices just got dropped from the Christmas Card list and will probably enjoy their IRS audits in the near future.

3/21/2012 7:01 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home