SCOTUS has slapped down the EPA. It’s insane that this case even had to be brought in the first place.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s Scalia’s majority (actually, unanimous, that’s what I meant by “slapped down”) opinion. It should be noted that it was not just the EPA that was slapped down, but (once again) the Ninth District.
[Update a while later]
They get their day in court, but they may still lose. As noted in comments, they need a legal fund, though I suspect they’re getting pro bono support from free-market places.
The link doesn’t work for me. I end up here: http://hosted.ap.org/specials/bluepage.html
I think the AP shifted the hyperlink out from under you.
I found another reference to the story at the Boston Herald. link
Citizens allowed to have their day in court? The nerve!
Surely the Democrats will find a way to rectify this turn of events…
One for the ‘little guys’, is never a bad thing. But this is huge, it kinda shuts the door on gub’ment agencies thinking they are outside or above the law.
Good.
Reading Scalia’s opinion was enlightening. Firstly because I never read one before….
So I really didn’t expect to see phrases such as:
“But the Sacketts cannot initiate that process, and each day they wait for the agency to drop the hammer, ……..”
Somehow I had this impression of a lofty august sort of prose – but I like this. One wonders what the first SC of the US would think of the style 😉
However this result – while laudatory and welcome – seems to only address the fact that the EPA and Congress boxed the Sacketts in by the fact that only the government could launch proceedings, and if the government didn’t then the Sacketts could be charged an additional 75 large a day. So the Sacketts had two choices:
knuckle under to the government or
accrue $75,000 a day and hope that the government would sue them so that they could have their day in court.
The opinion didn’t seem to address the rest of the EPA’s silliness. But as I understand it (and maybe I don’t) the SC can only hear a case it’s been asked to hear.
So now the Sacketts get their day in court to fight it out with the EPA on whether or not their rules are a huge steaming pile.
I wonder if the Sacketts have a Legal fund……
I liked Alito’s stuff.
“And if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad.”
“…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 EPA’s tune.”
“Unsurprisingly, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers interpreted the phrase as an essentially limitless grant of authority.”
Thanks George. It’s unfortunate the court couldn’t really get at the mindlessness at the core of this case: putting Army Corps of Engineers approved fill (basically gravel) on property that is not “wet” by any stretch of the imagination, and that is separated from the nearest body of water by several fully-developed residential lots, violates the Clean Water Act. As Patrick noted, Alito’s opinion is most worth the read. He is a gem.
By navigable I think the EPA is thinking hovercraft.
If property rights were actual and absolute this couldn’t happen. I don’t see absolute property rights ever happening on this planet. We have to go someplace else and set an example.
Ken,
it won’t be ‘set’ elsewhere either if we allow government to get this big again. I’m not a proponent of violent overthrow (yet) but I just don’t see people called ‘law makers’ doing away with laws, rules, codes, etc. It’s going to take some sort of collapse of central power and rebuilding of LIMITED government to undo where we are (I fear).
The Constitution and Bill of Rights preclude 99% of what ‘they’ can do to ‘us’ already. But we still see stuff like the EPA, DEA, etc, ad nauseum, getting powers that have no recourse or equal.
A founders did a great job. I think they made a few mistakes. But even if they came up with something absolutely perfect, people could still choose to ignore it.
It’s pretty obvious the lawyer lawmakers we have mostly have no respect for what our founders were trying to accomplish.
The end result over time is more tyranny with a chance of revolt.
I know I’m pretty revolting!
I keep coming back to a single change that would seriously put a crimp into at least the direct Constitutional violations:
Amendment: Government actors of any type involved in -constitutional- violations may hereby have suit brought against them directly.
Suits against ‘the state’ can attempt to make the victim whole, but the punitive aspect doesn’t ever dissuade the -next- insanity coming down the pike.
When you’re treading the line, be -damn- sure you can back up your position.