Every now and then, the Supreme Court decides to review one of the thousands of cases sent its way each year, and even experienced lawyers wonder why. And then, when a usually deeply divided Court renders a unanimous decision, the case becomes even more intriguing.
Last Friday, the United States Environmental Protection Agency withdrew a compliance order it previously had issued to Range Resources, and also dismissed an action the Agency had filed against Range in federal court. The EPA’s retreat appears to have been prompted by the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision against the Agency the week before in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency.
In a rare unanimous decision issued on March 21, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that property owners and other regulated parties can challenge administrative compliance orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The case involves the attempt a pair of Idaho landowners to challenge an EPA compliance order requiring them to take remedial action in response to alleged wetlands violations or face civil penalties of $75,000 per day.
The United States Supreme Court recently held that an enforcement order issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under the Clean Water Act (the “Act”) constituted “final agency action” and that the Act did not preclude judicial review of the order. (Sackett v. EPA, No. 10-1062 (U.S. March 21, 2012).
Last week the United States Supreme Court handed a decisive win to property owners battling to protect their due process rights against baseless environmental regulation. In Sackett v. EPA, the Sacketts were denied their due process rights when they attempted to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) determination that the Sackett property was encumbered with wetlands. Download Sackett v. EPA.
My head hurts. Actually, my brain hurts. It hurts because I’ve been spending more time than a Texan should watching the opinions come out of the Supreme Court of the United States. The reason for this cranial exertion is the upcoming Supreme Court update at the UT Seminar on State and Federal Appeals in June. The cases are starting to establish a theme. The high court spends a good deal of its time drawing boundaries.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held on March 21 that an Idaho couple who had received a compliance order from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for allegedly illegal filling of wetlands could directly challenge the order in court, and did not have to wait until EPA filed a lawsuit to enforce the order in court before obtaining judicial review of its validity.
On March 20, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the much anticipated decision in Sackett v. EPA. The Court rejected U.S. EPA’s claims that its administrative enforcement orders were not subject to pre-enforcement review. The Court’s decision provides a new tool to challenge EPA administrative compliance orders.
LXBN TV: The Reasoning and Impact of the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Sackett V. EPA—Foley Hoag’s Robert Sanoff
As we touched in a previous episode of LXBN TV, and have seen numerous LXBN authors explain, Sackett v. EPA is a case that could have a very big impact on the EPA’s enforcement authority. Earlier this week the court ruled unanimously against the EPA; in plain terms, this means that EPA must allow judicial review of enforcement orders issued pursuant to its authority under the Clean Water Act. But what remains to be seen is what impact this will have on the agency’s authority under other acts.
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Landowners to Challenge EPA Wetlands Determinations in Clean Water Act Compliance Orders
A unanimous Supreme Court in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 566 U.S. ___(2012) (No. 10-1062, March 21, 2012) (Ginsberg, J. and Alito, J, concurring), held that the Sacketts, owners of a 2/3-acre residential lot near Priest Lake in Idaho, could bring a civil action under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) challenging an EPA compliance order under Section 309 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).