Justices asked to ensure the EPA’s victims their day in court
The Supreme Court was urged today not to allow the EPA to place itself above the law by arbitrarily restricting judicial review of its regulations.
The justices heard the case of National Association of Manufacturers v. U.S. Department of Defense, which targets the EPA’s attempt to block lawsuits over its controversial “Waters of the United States” rule – a sweeping edict that would unlawfully expand the Clean Water Act to impose federal control over millions of landowners across the country.
Under the statute’s terms, people who are harmed by the WOTUS regulation, or other EPA enactments on the scope of the Clean Water Act, are supposed to able to sue in any federal district court within six years of the rule’s issuance. But the EPA is trying to require that such lawsuits are only filed in federal courts of appeal. Landowners would have just 120 days to file their challenges and all cases would be concentrated in a single appellate court.
M. Reed Hopper, a senior attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, who represents farmers, ranchers, and other landowners from across the country in the case, had this to say:
“The unelected regulators of the EPA are trying to shield themselves from accountability by limiting average Americans’ right to sue. It was encouraging to hear forceful arguments today against the agency’s attempt to twist the law and undermine access to justice. The Supreme Court justices were sympathetic to this argument and had very few questions for our colleagues arguing against the government’s position.
The justices saved their toughest questions for the government attorney, who was hard put to defend the EPA’s narrow interpretation of the law. The justices clearly understood that Americans who are harmed by overzealous bureaucrats must have full freedom to seek the protection of the judiciary. The EPA must not be allowed to rewrite the law and rob the agency’s victims of their day in court.”
More information on the case can be found at: pacificlegal.org/WOTUSvenue.
learn more about
Waters of the United States
It’s now up to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if the EPA can stretch federal control to nearly every pond, ditch, and puddle in the nation. On October 11, justices heard arguments in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, a consolidated case which included an extensive array of our clients. We challenged the EPA’s 2015 proposed rule as being nothing more than an outrageous – and illegal – power grab under cover of the Clean Water Act.Read more
What to read next
PLF filed an application asking the Michigan Supreme Court to grant review and bring justice to Uri Rafaeli—who lost an entire home to Oakland County over an $8 debt, and to Andrew Ohanessian—who lost 2.7 acres over a $6,000 debt.
A trial court in Marin County, California, handed down a tentative ruling in Cherk v. County of Marin, rejecting the Cherk family’s argument that it was unconstitutional for the County to force them to pay $40,000 into an “affordable housing” fund.
Before making a decision, most organizations take into account the costs and benefits of a proposed action, and will change course if the costs outweigh the benefits. Unfortunately, the federal government takes a different approach…