Supreme Court Sides With Private Property Owner in Landmark EPA Case

Today, the Supreme Court has sided with an Idaho couple in Sackett v. EPA, a private property rights case, ruling they have the right to go to court to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency policy that blocked construction of their new home and threatened fines of more than $30,000 a day.

In 2007  the EPA halted private property owners Mike and Chantell Sackett from building a new home on their property adjacent to a scenic lake in Idaho.  The reasoning?  The agency said part of the property was a wetlands that could not disturbed.

Supreme Court Rules Against EPA in Landmark Case |

Stop Building Your Dream Home: The Sacketts empty lot

The first phase of construction had already been completed on the private residence when federal officials showed up and ordered a halt in the work.  A fine of $30,000 a day would be levied against the Sackett’s were they to continue building.  The couple was then disallowed by the agency to obtain the permits needed to continue construction in local courts.

Supreme Court Rules Against EPA in Landmark Case |

The Sacketts: Couple wins unprecedented Supreme Court case against EPA

In this case, the couple objected to the determination that their small lot contained wetlands that would be harmed by construction and argued there was no reasonable way to challenge the order without risking steep fines.  The Sacketts were confounded at the EPA’s findings because their property was a completely landlocked lot within an existing subdivision.  As Blaze writer Becket Adams recently reported, “When Chantelle Sackett asked for evidence, EPA pointed her to the National Fish and Wildlife Wetlands Inventory, which showed them that their lot… was not on an existing wetland.”

Yep, according to the Wetlands Inventory, the Sackett’s property wasn’t on existing wetlands. So how did the EPA respond to this?

“The EPA responded [by issuing] what’s known as a compliance order, which said that the Sacketts were in violation of the Clean Water Act and subject to fines of up to $37,500 a day.”

(Related: Read our previous coverage on the story for more background)

The EPA’s argument in court today stated that allowing property owners quick access to courts to contest federal orders would compromise the agency’s ability to deal with water pollution via the Clean Water Act.

The majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia flatly rejects that notion.

“Compliance orders will remain an effective means of securing prompt voluntary compliance in those many cases where there is no substantial basis to question their validity,” Scalia said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a separate opinion that the only issue decided by the court was a property owners ability to contest the EPA findings specifically concerning the Clean Water Act.

“On that understanding, I join the court’s opinion,” she said.

Justice Samuel Alito called for congressional action to specify the reach of the Clean Water Act. Alito said that federal regulators could assert authority over any property that is wet for even part of the year, not just rivers and streams.

The court’s opinion “is better than nothing, but only clarification of the reach of the Clean Water Act can rectify the underlying problem,” Alito said.

(Related: Read more on the court’s opinion)

Supreme Court Rules Against EPA in Landmark Case |

The victorious couple after the ruling

In a statement, the Sacketts commended the ruling,

“We are very thankful to the Supreme Court for affirming that we have rights, and that the EPA is not a law unto itself and that the EPA is not beyond the control of the courts and the Constitution.”

Their statement went on to attack the EPA’s tactics,

“The EPA used bullying and threats of terrifying fines, and has made our life hell for the past five years.  It said we could not go to court and challenge their bogus claim that our small lot had ‘wetlands’ on it.  As this nightmare went on, we rubbed our eyes and started to wonder if we were living in some totalitarian country.”

Principal Attorney Damien M. Schiff noted after the ruling,

“The EPA is not above the law.“ continuing on to say ” EPA will have to be prepared to show a reviewing court that its wetlands regulations are really necessary — not just a power trip.”

 

This story has been updated with additional information.

Comments (111)

1 2 3 4
  • GodGivenRights
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 2:26pm

    This is a glorious day! I am so proud of the Sackett’s for fighting the good fight. The EPA routinely bankrupts citizens and companies to advance the globalist agenda. Imagine our prosperity if we could eliminate this evil agency. The bigger story is the SCOTUS unanimous decision. Even the radical commie judges could relate to this abuse of power. Hopefully this is the just the beginning of the end for the EPA.

    Report Post »  
    • Kathleen
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 3:14pm

      The EPA need to be punished.

      Report Post »  
    • Crush_Liberalism
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 3:18pm

      SWEEET! In other news, the White House scrambles to retain totalitarian powers through it’s regulatory agencies!
      From the White House, “This is an unfortunate setback, but we will NOT allow the rights of individuals to halt the ability of our government to force people to do what it determines is ‘best’ ! ” lol
      (That’s a joke – to all the liberals who only recognize Bill Maher-style humor)

      Report Post » Crush_Liberalism  
    • angeleyes63
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 4:09pm

      @ GODGIVENRIGHTS
      If you really want to thank someone for this glorious God given rights win thank the Pacific Legal Foundation they were instrumental in securing this victory check them out @ http://www.pacificlegalfoundation.org

      Report Post »  
    • 9111315
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 4:18pm

      The EPA still won for five years.

      Report Post »  
    • Bum thrower
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 5:15pm

      Abolish the EPA!!! they are anti property rights; anti business; and anti American; they are stocked by leftistss who what to destroy the county…………

      Report Post »  
    • Brian
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 11:18pm

      The EPA needs to pay the Sacketts back all the money they spent the last five years.

      Report Post » Brian  
    • MYHEROISRON
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:25am

      I would like to know who, within the EPA, is personally responsible for this act of communism! We should then hang them from the nearest tree in our local wetland!

      Report Post » MYHEROISRON  
    • denisp52
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 3:07am

      The EPA needs to pay them the $37,500 a day for the last 5 years for their bogus delay power trip and the money needs to come from the salaries of the jokers running the EPA!

      Report Post »  
    • CLG 4
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 9:38am

      Hang on folks the new socialist constitution (the health bill) will be used by the EPA in the future to show that building in what they call wet lands will be bad for our health, checkmate.

      Report Post »  
    • Bluebonnet
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 4:05pm

      PRAISE THE LORD. The EPA have a license to steal anything that moves, whether there’s a real cause or not. Get rid of the strong arm, unfair, complacent EPA, who hate the Americans.

      Report Post »  
  • HorseCrazy
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 2:21pm

    unfortunately if you read the justices entire opinion you would lose faith in this as being a good step in the right direction. they only overturned it because there was no way to contest a desicion to inflict fines, they do not discuss the constitutionality of letting the epa do so in the first place. In fact what is said is that the fines are ok as long as there is a number to call and get a reason behind why youre being fined and a way to contest them. this is not the big win it should have been.

    Report Post »  
    • little big man
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 2:51pm

      here here one for the good guys

      Report Post » little big man  
    • TheBurningTruth
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 3:43pm

      You are quite correct. They also said that the EPA could use the Clean Water act to “assert authority over any property that is wet for even part of the year, not just rivers and streams”. Just what does THAT mean? My property gets wet eery time it rains, and so does yours.

      The Progressive Liberals in Congress have been trying to re-write the 1972 Clean Water Act for years, and one of their favorite tricks is to remove the word “navigable” from the sentence giving them power over “navigable rivers and streams”. You’ll note that the court just gave them permission to do just that. Technically that means if you have a swimming pool in your yard, you need federal permission to do anything to it. It essentially gets turned into a “wetland” and then you could be arrested for poisoning it by adding chlorine to it.

      This decision is very narrow as it does NOT block the EPA from doing it again, as one poster mentioned, it just gives the victim his day in court, still at great expense. This is government by coercion where they simply wear you down financially with your own tax money.

      Report Post » TheBurningTruth  
    • Unstable Phenomenon
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 4:44pm

      Don’t let this get you down. We can’t expect to get everything at once. Remember the liberals systematically used the courts a little at a time to get their liberal EPA the power they have now, because they knew if they tried to grab it all at once the American public would of stopped it. Like what the president is doing now, trying to grab it all at once, and we are waking up more and more day by day. We just have to systematically take away their power little by little using the courts, the same way the liberals did it to us.

      Report Post » Unstable Phenomenon  
    • Robert-CA
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 6:01pm

      The EPA will come back to this from another window this time cause let‘s not forget it’s really called :
      ” Obama’s EPA “

      Report Post » Robert-CA  
  • abseas
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 2:08pm

    What a nightmare for these people. Many in this country look upon the EPA as the enemy. Not hard to see why. We have rules rules rules and more rules with even more rules being dreamed up every day. Rules and regulations are contributing to the destruction of this country . . . Uh . . But that pretty much goes along with this administration’s plan . . . Right?

    Report Post »  
    • @leftfighter
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 2:17pm

      This is flat out abuse of power, but is that really out of the ordinary for the EPA? Here you have a government agency predecated upon the abuse of power with no other tools available to it but the abuse of power.

      I wish SCotUS had gone half a step further and just ruled the EPA unconstitutional.

      Report Post » @leftfighter  
    • michael48
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 3:21pm

      get a buss. licence and try dealing with these SS Troopers, I WELCOME YOU TO HE!!….

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 5:52pm

      Cause we want to return to a time when rivers would catch on fire. This ruling made sense in so far as it held that they must be access to the courts to challenge EPA determinations. The EPA and its rules still stand only now they are subject to due process.

      Report Post »  
  • TexBork
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 2:04pm

    This is pretty good news, but Obama‘s DOJ has got his EPA’s back when it comes to oppressive regulation, the socialists will win if they are allowed to remain in power and they will continue to take more of the people’s power for themselves and dictate to the people what to do.

    Report Post » TexBork  
  • Chuck Stein
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:55pm

    Access to the Courts.
    This. Is. HUGE.

    Report Post »  
  • barber2
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:50pm

    Well, now we know why the Big Brother Obama Administration has been criticzing the SCOTUS ever since that famous State of the Union Speech ! Obama has targeted the Court to his angry, union base for ages. Am sure the Democrats will ratchet this up again in time for the Spring Occupies, the next election, and the SCOTUS decision on ObamaCare. Get ready. Riots will follow ! Tough when you have Chicago politicians in the White House. They follow the Alinsky Rules For Radicals. They ” don‘t need no stink’n ” Constitution ! They have Czars and Executive Orders !

    Report Post »  
    • Revere2
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 2:00pm

      Riots are coming, is that why Obama passed the executive order to control all businesses during unrest?

      Report Post » Revere2  
  • Cavallo
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:48pm

    Now, its back to court to fight again. They still have to win the other argument in court. This decision is just the court saying, “Hey, they need their due process.” There is still a fight ahead.

    Report Post » Cavallo  
    • Baddoggy
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:57pm

      You are correct. The EPA could still prevail here. If we had a Congress with any balls we would defund them completely.

      Report Post » Baddoggy  
  • kindling
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:48pm

    WOOHOO….there is still some hope in the country! I wish we could just get rid of the EPA, IRS, education, and the rest of the federal thugs.

    Report Post » kindling  
  • Eric_The_Red_State
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:46pm

    Hey LOOK – a light at the end of a long dark tunnel

    I am seeing more “good news” lately.

    I HOPE that we can finnaly make a CHANGE

    Report Post » Eric_The_Red_State  
  • RLM
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:41pm

    wet for even part of the year? Sooo . . . . like only on days that it rained?

    Report Post »  
  • sourdoughboy
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:40pm

    I look forward to the next court battle. Now they get their day in court to defend against the EPA that their land is not a wetland. The EPA will come loaded for bear and bury them in legal fee’s and court actions. They will not play nice. Their authority has been challenged. And like a parent (EPA) when dealing with a child (the Sacketts), all challenges to authority most be taken strait to the mat. So the child will know who is in charge. they will need a good Children’s Rights Attorney.

    Report Post »  
  • Nigel2
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:32pm

    Anyone who thinks a court order will end the abuses of these peoples property rights are just dreaming. Watch what happens if the supreme court rules Obamacare unconstitutional. I expect Obama to move ahead with it anyhow and say they will not abide by an “activist” supreme court

    Report Post » Nigel2  
    • PATRIOTMAMA
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 2:02pm

      @NIGEL2

      I sincerely pray that won’t happen because then there will be blood in the streets. There will be no other solution. If they take out Congress and then the Court people will have no other recourse but to wage a revolution. I pray it doesn’t come to that. God, please, in the name of Jesus, get this radical thug out of office and help lead us to a cleaning house party.

      Report Post »  
  • getourcountryback
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:31pm

    Good for the people of the US. We do not need any more of our private property rights taken away. Good for the Supreme Court and God willing they will strike down that monstrosity of obamacare.

    Report Post »  
  • progressiveslayer
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:30pm

    Finally the supreme court ruled within the bounds of the constitution and on a related matter the EPA is an unconstitutional department designed to end capitalism and so the EPA should be abolished,they’re tyrannical and oppressive.

    Report Post » progressiveslayer  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:26pm

    Finally – one small victory for our side. We need to reign in the EPA; keep only what is absolutly needed, and get the political favortism and fanatical ideology out of the way.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
  • spirited
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:24pm

    Will the private property owners Mike and Chantell Sackett be reimbursed for any and all related costs

    >including pain and suffering???

    Report Post » spirited  
  • Longing for Change
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:23pm

    This is a great ruling.

    Now, where all all the lawyers and environmentalists fighting for the lives of all the birds, bats, animals and such being killed by all the Wind Turbines? The mid-west is being eaten alive with insects because bats are being killed. Bats eat insects. Throughout the country “Bird-of-Prey” are being killed by the thousands each year, yet we have to have these turbines that are providing less than 3% of the countries electricity. This whole administration makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    Report Post » Longing for Change  
  • AvengerK
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:21pm

    The good guys win again. Disolve the EPA, put the matter back in each state’s own hands. Let the people of each state decide their own matters.

    Report Post »  
  • cemerius
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:21pm

    Not much of a victory when all it allows them to do is “have their day in court”! EPA needs to be abolished as well as the DOE and DOEd!!!

    Report Post » cemerius  
  • jackact
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:21pm

    Looks like the supremes are warming up to repeal Obamacare.
    Can’t wait for justice Thomas to stand up for our Constitution and even the score with the rabid left.
    This is going to be fun.

    Report Post »  
  • Locked
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:21pm

    It doesn’t say it in the article at this time, but it was a unanimous ruling.

    Report Post »  
  • TheObamanation
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:20pm

    Finally these people get some peace of mind … The EPA has gotten to big for its britches … It’s time to knock them back down to size … This could be the beginning of something good.

    Report Post » TheObamanation  
  • AxelPhantom
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:19pm

    A conservative Supreme Court is the only thing standing between the rights of the people and the Democrat insanity.
    This is why it is so important to beat Obama. The next President will appoint 2-3 new Justices. We lose, there will be no barrier left.

    Report Post »  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:28pm

      Now that family should have the ability to recoupe all revenues lost and compensation for time and mental stress. The EPA should be required to work through Congress and not around it as well.

      Report Post »  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:28pm

      Now that family should have the ability to recoupe all revenues lost and compensation for time and mental stress. The EPA should be required to work through Congress and not around it as well.

      Report Post »  
    • hauschild
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:31pm

      Yes.

      But, don‘t you feel we’re fighting a losing battle in that regard? Each passing election cycle brings larger, seemingly insurmountable odds. Our side is chock full of people that care, going up against people that don‘t give a rat’s ass about anything.

      That‘s why I think secession is the only option we have left to avoid lots of dead bodies when it’s all said and done. Why do we keep fighting these idiots? It’s the very definition of insanity. We win one fight, then comes along a new younger generation more stupid, more lazy and more apathetic than the one before it. It’s crazy.

      Report Post »  
    • KixAcelot
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:52pm

      I agree 100% however it is worth noting that the Supreme Court was UNANIMOUS in its decision.

      Report Post » KixAcelot  
    • AxelPhantom
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:54pm

      Haus,

      I live in Texas and I believe that my family is where they are supposed to be. Seccession is a last resort.

      I am a Libertarian have been all of my life and rarely vote outside of my party. This year I will vote in the general election for whoever the Republicans nominate because I believe that to not do so will hasten, prolong and deepen the pain that I think is enevitablly coming our way as a country.

      The founders put in place a series of flood gates when they created the separation of powers. So far Obama has been able to breech two and there is only one left standing materially represented in the Judicial branch. To allow Obama 2-3 lifetime appointments to the court would ensure that we will be unable to recover for at least 20 years what we will lose on one day in November.

      That being said I don’t believe the solution lies in one man any more than it does in one branch of government. It is also important to not only hold the House with good people, but to take the Senate as well, so that if we lose the Executive and Judicial respectively, at least we will have a something left to work with.

      Report Post »  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 2:08pm

      Axel,.
      The Com=nstitution can be radified Supreme Court Judges can be removed…..Fact is they should be if ideology clouds their judgement.

      Report Post »  
    • AxelPhantom
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 2:18pm

      So can the President, and yet it hasn‘t happened and it won’t.

      Report Post »  
  • oldguy49
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:18pm

    about time the courts stood up

    Report Post »  
  • SoupSandwich
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 1:17pm

    Some sanity at least.

    Report Post »  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love