Panel discussion of Sackett v. EPA oral argument at Georgetown Law Center on January 9, 2012
The Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown Law Center is hosting a panel discussion of the oral argument in Sackett v. EPA on January 9, 2012 at 1:30 p.m., just a few hours following the actual oral argument in the Supreme Court, which takes place at 10:00 a.m. that morning. All are invited to attend this free event, which will be moderated by Georgetown Law Professor Lisa Heinzerling.
Panelists are PLF’s Damien M. Schiff, who is arguing the case; attorney Virginia S. Albrecht, a partner with Hunton & Williams in Washington, DC, who has many years of experience litigating wetlands cases and who represented several parties as amici in support of the Sacketts; Harvard Law Professor Richard J. Lazarus; and UC Davis Law Professor Richard M. Frank.
If you are in the Washington DC area and want to hear what promises to be an interesting and lively discussion of due process and the power of federal agencies, we welcome your attendance! This will be especially helpful for those of you who would like to attend the oral argument, but may not have the opportunity.
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
Our friends at Institute for Justice have convinced the Supreme Court to soon decide in the case Timbs v. Indiana whether the Constitution restrains states (and not just the federal government) from … ›