Sackett v. EPA
566 U.S. ____ (2012) (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative compliance order issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Water Act constitutes a "final agency action" for which there is no other adequate remedy in court, and is therefore subject to pre-enforcement judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Facts:
- Michael and Chantell Sackett purchased a 0.63-acre residential lot in Bonner County, Idaho, near Priest Lake.
- The Sacketts' property is separated from the lake by several other developed lots containing permanent structures.
- To prepare for building a house, the Sacketts placed dirt and rock fill on a portion of their property.
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an administrative compliance order to the Sacketts.
- The order asserted that the Sacketts' property contained federally protected wetlands and that they had violated the Clean Water Act by filling the area without a permit.
- The EPA's order required the Sacketts to immediately remove the fill material, restore the site according to an EPA-mandated plan, and threatened daily penalties of up to $75,000 for non-compliance.
- The Sacketts requested a hearing from the EPA to challenge the order's findings, but the EPA denied their request.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael and Chantell Sackett filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the EPA.
- The District Court, acting as the trial court, dismissed the Sacketts' claims for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Sacketts, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, concluding that the Clean Water Act precluded pre-enforcement judicial review of compliance orders.
- The Sacketts petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an administrative compliance order issued by the EPA under the Clean Water Act, which requires immediate action and threatens severe penalties, constitute final agency action subject to pre-enforcement judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
Yes. The EPA's compliance order is a final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy, and the Clean Water Act does not preclude judicial review under the APA. The order constitutes a final agency action because it determines the Sacketts' legal rights and obligations, such as the requirement to restore their property, and legal consequences flow from it, including exposure to double penalties and severe limitations on their ability to obtain a permit. The order also marks the consummation of the EPA's decision-making process, as the agency denied a hearing and its findings were not subject to further agency review. The Clean Water Act does not contain any express language precluding judicial review, and the statutory scheme does not implicitly overcome the strong presumption in favor of it.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. I agree that the Sacketts may immediately litigate their jurisdictional challenge in federal court because the EPA has definitively ruled on whether it has regulatory authority over their property. The Court's opinion correctly allows a challenge to the jurisdictional basis for the order. However, the opinion does not decide whether the Sacketts could also challenge the specific terms and conditions of the compliance order at this pre-enforcement stage, leaving that question open for a future case.
Concurring - Justice Alito
Yes. The federal government's position, which the Court rightly rejects, would have placed ordinary Americans' property rights entirely at the mercy of the EPA. The Clean Water Act's reach is notoriously unclear, and the threat of draconian penalties for violations effectively forces property owners to comply with EPA orders without any practical way to challenge the agency's jurisdictional claims in court. While allowing review under the APA provides modest relief, the underlying problem is the ambiguity of the phrase 'waters of the United States,' which only Congress can rectify by providing a reasonably clear rule.
Analysis:
This decision significantly shifts the balance of power between the EPA and property owners under the Clean Water Act. It repudiates the government's position that landowners must wait, while potentially ruinous fines accrue, for the EPA to initiate an enforcement action before challenging the agency's jurisdiction. By affirming the strong presumption of judicial review under the APA, the ruling provides an immediate judicial forum for individuals to contest the validity of compliance orders. This precedent serves as a crucial check on administrative authority, forcing agencies like the EPA to be more certain of their jurisdictional claims before issuing coercive orders and empowering citizens to challenge agency overreach without facing financial ruin.
