This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Sackett v. EPA (2012): Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=Supreme Court of the United States |date=March 21, 2012 |subject=Environmental Law |case_treatment=No |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Te...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|date=March 21, 2012 | |date=March 21, 2012 | ||
|subject=Environmental Law | |subject=Environmental Law | ||
| | |appealed_from=9th Circuit | ||
|facts=The Sacketts owned a huge residential lot in [https://www.idaho.gov/ Idaho]. They were building their home & filling in holes therein when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("[https://www.epa.gov/ EPA]") sent them a compliance order. | |||
The aforesaid order stated that the Sackett property wetlands were subject to the Clean Water Act ([https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act CWA]) due to their proximity to [https://priestlake.org/ Priest Lake]. The order demanded the Sacketts not fill in the wetlands for home-building or face daily fines of $75,000. | |||
|procedural_history=The Sacketts sued the EPA in a federal district court in Idaho. | |||
|issues=Is a compliance order under the Clean Water Act a final agency action entitled to <span style="background:yellow">judicial review</span> under the APA ([https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5 Administrative Procedure Act])? | |||
|arguments=EPA attorneys argued that the Clean Water Act precluded <span style="background:yellow">judicial review</span> of the compliance order. | |||
|holding=A compliance order under the Clean Water Act is a final agency action entitled to judicial review under the APA. | |||
|reasons=[[Antonin Scalia]] wrote that the APA permits <span style="background:yellow">judicial review</span> of final agency actions for which there is no other adequate remedy. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/566/120/ | |link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/566/120/ | ||
| Line 9: | Line 17: | ||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/sackett-v-epa | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/sackett-v-epa | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |source_type=Video summary | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:41, July 14, 2023
| Sackett v. EPA (2012) | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | March 21, 2012 |
| Appealed from | 9th Circuit |
| Followed by | |
| Sackett v. EPA (2023) | |
Facts
The Sacketts owned a huge residential lot in Idaho. They were building their home & filling in holes therein when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") sent them a compliance order.
The aforesaid order stated that the Sackett property wetlands were subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA) due to their proximity to Priest Lake. The order demanded the Sacketts not fill in the wetlands for home-building or face daily fines of $75,000.Procedural History
The Sacketts sued the EPA in a federal district court in Idaho.
Issues
Is a compliance order under the Clean Water Act a final agency action entitled to judicial review under the APA (Administrative Procedure Act)?
Arguments
EPA attorneys argued that the Clean Water Act precluded judicial review of the compliance order.
Holding
A compliance order under the Clean Water Act is a final agency action entitled to judicial review under the APA.
Reasons
Antonin Scalia wrote that the APA permits judicial review of final agency actions for which there is no other adequate remedy.
