A heartfelt thanks to our supporters from the Sacketts
As readers know, we are currently awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA, which could come out at any time. This is the 6th case Pacific Legal Foundation has taken to the Supreme Court (the 7th case we have argued), and PLF could not do this important work without the generous support of all of our donors, since we represent every one of our clients pro bono. The Sacketts wanted to express their thanks to our donors for making their battle possible.
We also thank all of you. Our work would not be possible without the financial support of freedom-loving Americans across the nation. We also extend our thanks to those who share the stories of our cases, and provide encouragement and moral support for our work. And, of course, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the Sacketts. The fact is, the Sacketts are the ones who have had to live this nightmare as it has wound its way through the EPA and courts for nearly 5 years. It takes a tremendous amount of strength and moral courage to do what they have done, and they are fighting for all of us.
learn more about
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency
Chantell and Michael Sackett received a local permit to build a modest three-bedroom home on a half-acre lot in an existing, partially built-out residential subdivision in Priest Lake, Idaho. The home poses no threat to water quality but federal EPA regulators nonetheless declared their property to contain a wetland and demanded they stop all work and restore the lot to its natural condition or pay fines of up to $75,000 per day. When they sued to challenge this order, EPA asserted they had no right to judicial review. The district court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and tossed their lawsuit out of court. The United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed, ruling that failure to allow the lawsuit violated the Sacketts’ constitutional due process rights. They are now litigating their claims in federal district court in Idaho.Read more
What to read next
The Forest Service pulled a bait-and-switch on a decades-old land deal. Here’s how the owners are fighting back.
When the government negotiates for a limited-access easement across your property, it cannot turn around later and decide it has an unlimited right to cross your property. Wil Wilkins and … ›
This morning, PLF filed an Amicus Letter urging the Supreme Court of California to grant review of the court of appeal’s decision in Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control … ›