Supremes hostile to EPA in wetlands case

EPA appears likely to lose.

Greenwire reports,

U.S. EPA faced a hostile Supreme Court today as the agency defended its authority to issue compliance orders under the Clean Water Act without allowing an immediate hearing on the underlying issue.

Justices from both ends of the political spectrum seemed to think that property owners should be able to contest administrative compliance orders that EPA issues when it believes a permit is required before a wetland is filled.

The case, Sackett v. EPA, arose when Mike and Chantell Sackett, from Priest Lake, Idaho, began earth-moving work on a plot of land just yards from scenic Priest Lake in 2007…

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both conservatives appointed by President George W. Bush, were most scathing about the government’s defense of the existing process.

At one point, Alito asked Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart whether he agreed that “most ordinary homeowners would say this couldn’t happen in the United States.”

Earlier, he told Damien Schiff, the Sacketts’ attorney, that it was “very strange” that the Sacketts probably could have avoided the enforcement action if they had applied for a permit, even though they don’t believe they need one.

Roberts, meanwhile, told Stewart that, when EPA makes a jurisdictional determination about a wetland, the lack of immediate review effectively means the agency is “never going to be put to the test.”

The liberal members of the court, while less acerbic, seemed to agree that the existing process needs to be reworked.

Justice Stephen Breyer, while expressing some sympathy for EPA’s desire to force compliance with the Clean Water Act, said repeatedly that compliance orders look a lot like final agency action, which is normally reviewable in court under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The order “is not just a warning,” he added.

Although it appears EPA is likely to lose the case, Justice Antonin Scalia noted that the agency may be able to avoid any major changes to how it operates by simply issuing warning letters instead of compliance orders.

He also suggested to Schiff that even if the Sacketts did get court review of the compliance order, “you are not going to be out of the woods” because EPA likely would still be able to bring an enforcement action in federal court if it chose to do so.

One thought on “Supremes hostile to EPA in wetlands case”

  1. The fact that the EPA can still get around this corruption of rights is even more evidence that the Clear Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act must be reworked and the EPA needs to be cut down to size. Their budget needs to be cut by at least 80% and their legislative authority must be seriously restricted with no review of that authority allowed by the courts.

    I wish someone would look real closely at how much of their legislative authority comes from court decisions and how much comes from the legislature. Especially since they are clearly in agreement with the greenies who sue them. Then if they lose in the first stages they just give up. This ends up giving them the authority to do what they really wanted to do but couldn’t without some of these judgments.

Comments are closed.