The plaintiffs, Mike and Chantell Sackett, purchased, approximately, a two-thirds 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.[2] Both the District Court[3] and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals[4] 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?"[5] The Sacketts, technically consulted by wetland experts Ray and Susan Kagel of Kagel Environmental, LLC,[6] and represented by Damien M. Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation, filed their opening brief on September 23, 2011.[7] 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.[7]
Opinion of the courtedit
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 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the Sacketts' challenge to the compliance order to the district court, consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.
Decision after remandedit
The United States District Court for the District of Idaho ruled against the Sacketts, finding that the area in question was a wetland and had been filled without necessary permits.[8]
sackett, environmental, protection, agency, 2012, sackett, environmental, protection, agency, 2012, also, known, sackett, distinguish, from, 2023, case, united, states, supreme, court, case, which, court, held, that, orders, issued, environmental, protection, . Sackett v Environmental Protection Agency 566 U S 120 2012 also known as Sackett I to distinguish it from the 2023 case is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act 1 The Court ruled that because the Environmental Protection Agency s orders constitute final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act federal courts may hear appeals from its orders Sackett v Environmental Protection AgencySupreme Court of the United StatesArgued January 9 2012Decided March 21 2012Full case nameChantell Sackett et vir v Environmental Protection Agency et al Docket no 10 1062Citations566 U S 120 more 132 S Ct 1367 182 L Ed 2d 367 2012 U S LEXIS 2320ArgumentOral argumentCase historyPriorCase dismissed 2008 WL 3286801 D Idaho Aug 7 2008 affirmed 622 F 3d 1139 9th Cir 2010 cert granted 564 U S 1052 2011 SubsequentRemanded to District court 677 F 3d 1000 9th Cir 2012 HoldingOrders under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act which requires an appeals process for any ruling by a federal agency Court membershipChief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia Anthony KennedyClarence Thomas Ruth Bader GinsburgStephen Breyer Samuel AlitoSonia Sotomayor Elena KaganCase opinionsMajorityScalia joined by unanimousConcurrenceGinsburgConcurrenceAlitoLaws appliedU S Const amend V Clean Water Act Administrative Procedure Act Contents 1 Background 2 Opinion of the court 3 Decision after remand 4 See also 5 References 6 External linksBackground editThe plaintiffs Mike and Chantell Sackett purchased approximately a two thirds 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 2 Both the District Court 3 and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 4 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 5 The Sacketts technically consulted by wetland experts Ray and Susan Kagel of Kagel Environmental LLC 6 and represented by Damien M Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation filed their opening brief on September 23 2011 7 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 7 Opinion of the court editIn 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 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the Sacketts challenge to the compliance order to the district court consistent with the Supreme Court s opinion Decision after remand editThe United States District Court for the District of Idaho ruled against the Sacketts finding that the area in question was a wetland and had been filled without necessary permits 8 See also editList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 566References edit 566 U S 120 2012 Sackett v EPA Supreme Court of the United States 2012 p 1139 Retrieved August 23 2022 Sackett v EPA PDF D Idaho 2008 Archived from the original PDF on March 4 2016 Retrieved August 23 2022 Sackett v EPA PDF 9th Circuit Court 1130 2010 Retrieved August 23 2022 Sackett v Environmental Protection Agency U S Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center 2011 Retrieved August 23 2022 EPA Drops Alleged Clean Water Act Violations Against Client in the Aftermath of the Watershed United States Supreme Court CWA Case Sackett v The United States of America Archived from the original on February 13 2015 Retrieved March 4 2015 a b No 10 1062 United States Supreme Court 2011 Retrieved August 23 2022 Sackett v EPA PDF D Idaho 2019 Retrieved August 23 2022 External links editText of Sackett v Environmental Protection Agency 566 U S 120 2012 is available from CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez oral argument audio Supreme Court slip opinion archived Cover of the case on SCOTUSblog Smith Turner Holden Margaret 2013 Case Comment Sackett v EPA Harvard Environmental Law Review Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Sackett v Environmental Protection Agency 2012 amp oldid 1178230598, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
