CHANTELL SACKETT, et vir, PETITIONERS v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al. (566 U.S. 120)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 21, 2012 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 566 U.S. 120 · 132 S. Ct. 1367
- Decided
- March 21, 2012
- Term
- October Term 2011
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. We consider whether Michael and Chantell Sackett may bring a civil action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 500 et seq., to challenge the issuance by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of an administrative compliance order under §309 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1319. The order asserts that the Sacketts’ property is subject to the Act, and that they have violated its provisions by placing fill material on the property; and on this basis it directs them immediately to restore the property pursuant to an EPA work plan. HH The Clean Water Act prohibits, among other things, the discharge of any pollutant by any person,” § 1311, without a permit, into the “navigable waters,” § 1344 — which the Act defines as “the waters of the United States,” § 1362(7). If the EPA determines that any person is in violation of this restriction, the Act directs the Agency either to issue a compliance order or to initiate a civil enforcement action. § 1319(a)(3). When the EPA prevails in a civil action, the Act provides for “a civil penalty not to exceed [$37,500] per day for each violation.” § 1319(d). And according to the Government, when the EPA prevails against any person who has been issued a compliance order but has failed to comply, that amount is increased to $75,000 — up to $37,500 for the statutory…
Excerpt of a 17,611-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.