Knotbuyinit
Veteran
- Dec 12, 2011
- 1,299
- 421
Unanimous Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Property Owners in Sackett v. EPA
Justices Ginsburg and Alito opinions in the case
The Court bases its decision on statutory grounds, ruling that the property owners are entitled to judicial review of their case under the Administrative Procedure Act. It therefore did not reach the issue of whether such review is also required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states that the government may not deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
The scope of the decision is therefore limited. And, as Justice Alito goes on to explain, the combination of the uncertain reach of the Clean Water Act and the draconian penalties imposed for the sort of violations alleged in this case still leaves most property owners with little practical alternative but to dance to the EPAs tune.
He urges Congress to clarify the scope of the CWA so that property owners will at least have a clearer indication of the scope of EPA authority over their land. Despite these limitations, the decision is a significant victory for property rights, and a rare case of unanimity on an important property rights issue.
Two Noteworthy Quotes;
"Scalia joked in summarizing the decision from the bench that the Sacketts were surprised by the EPA decision that their land contained navigable waters of the United States 'having never seen a ship or other vessel cross their yard." Oh Justice Scalia: you complete me.
Alito "The position taken in this case by the Federal Governmenta position that the Court now squarely rejectswould have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees. The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on alot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agencys mercy."
Justices Ginsburg and Alito opinions in the case
The Court bases its decision on statutory grounds, ruling that the property owners are entitled to judicial review of their case under the Administrative Procedure Act. It therefore did not reach the issue of whether such review is also required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states that the government may not deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
The scope of the decision is therefore limited. And, as Justice Alito goes on to explain, the combination of the uncertain reach of the Clean Water Act and the draconian penalties imposed for the sort of violations alleged in this case still leaves most property owners with little practical alternative but to dance to the EPAs tune.
He urges Congress to clarify the scope of the CWA so that property owners will at least have a clearer indication of the scope of EPA authority over their land. Despite these limitations, the decision is a significant victory for property rights, and a rare case of unanimity on an important property rights issue.
Two Noteworthy Quotes;
"Scalia joked in summarizing the decision from the bench that the Sacketts were surprised by the EPA decision that their land contained navigable waters of the United States 'having never seen a ship or other vessel cross their yard." Oh Justice Scalia: you complete me.
Alito "The position taken in this case by the Federal Governmenta position that the Court now squarely rejectswould have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees. The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on alot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agencys mercy."
