Citations 566 U.S. ___ (more) Date 2012 | Argument Oral argument | |
Full case name Chantell Sackett, et vir, Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. Prior history Case dismissed, 2008 WL 3286801 (D. Idaho Aug. 7, 2008); affirmed, 622 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2010); certiorari granted, 564 U.S. ___ (2011) Subsequent history Remanded to District court, 677 F.3d 1000 (9th. Cir., May 3, 2012) Majority Scalia, joined by unanimous | ||
Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 566 U.S. ___ (2012), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Clean Water Act is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires an appeals process for any ruling by a federal agency. The Court ruled that the availability of immediate judicial review of compliance orders issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency is required.
Contents
Background
The plaintiffs, Mike and Chantell Sackett, purchased, approximately, a two-third acre parcel of land (0.62) near Priest Lake, Idaho, on which they planned to build a house. Shortly after they began clearing the lot, the Sacketts received a Compliance Order from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, asserting that the property was subject to the Clean Water Act, and that the Sacketts had illegally placed fill material into jurisdictional wetlands on their property. After trying unsuccessfully to obtain a hearing from the EPA, the Sacketts filed suit demanding an opportunity to contest the jurisdictional basis of the Compliance Order. Both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the government, holding that the validity of the Compliance Order could be challenged only if and when EPA brings an enforcement action seeking to impose civil and criminal penalties against the Sacketts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, 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 preenforcement judicial review of the administrative compliance order violate their rights under the Due Process clause?"
The Sacketts, technically consulted by wetland experts Ray and Susan Kagel of Kagel Environmental, LLC, and represented by Damien M. Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation, filed their opening brief on September 23, 2011. Amicus briefs in support of the petitioners were filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Association of Homebuilders. The opposition brief of the Solicitor General of the United States was filed on November 23, 2011.
Opinion of the Court
In a unanimous opinion by Justice Scalia issued on March 21, 2012, the Court held that EPA's compliance orders may be challenged in a civil action brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The compliance orders are "final agency action" for purposes of the APA, and the Clean Water Act does not preclude judicial review under the APA.
Justices Ginsburg and Alito each filed concurring opinions. Justice Ginsburg stated in her concurrence that the ruling only permitted the Sacketts to challenge EPA's assertion of jurisdiction over their property; the Court did not resolve whether the terms and conditions of the Compliance Order itself were subject to immediate judicial review. Justice Alito recommended that Congress act to clarify issues regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act.
On May 3, 2012, the Appeals Court for the Ninth Circuit remanded the Sackett's challenge to the compliance order to the district court, consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.