Press Release

At the Supreme Court, PLF defends the Sacketts’ right to appeal EPA dictates

Washington, DC; January 9, 2012: Oral argument was held today at the United States Supreme Court in the Pacific Legal Foundation property rights case of Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency. In this high-profile litigation, PLF seeks to establish that property owners have a right to appeal to court when EPA effectively seizes control of their property by declaring it “wetlands” under the Clean Water Act.

Arguing on behalf of PLF clients Mike and Chantell Sackett was Damien M. Schiff, a PLF Senior Staff Attorney.

In a statement for release after oral argument, Schiff said the following: “If EPA essentially seizes control of your property by labeling it as ‘wetlands,’ do you have a right to appeal to a court of law? EPA says, No. The Ninth Circuit has said, No. Today, on behalf of Idaho property owners Mike and Chantell Sackett, Pacific Legal Foundation urged the Supreme Court to say, Yes. The Sacketts — and all property owners who are hit with EPA attempts to control their property under the Clean Water Act — have a statutory right and a constitutional right to their day in court. EPA must not be considered a law unto itself. Its edicts — in particular, its ‘wetlands’ compliance orders to property owners — must be subject to meaningful judicial review.”

Victims of EPA overreach seek the right to their day in court

PLF clients Mike and Chantell Sackett, of Priest Lake, Idaho, bought a small parcel in 2005 with the intent to build a three-bedroom family home. The lot is in a residential area, where neighbors have built their own houses. The Sacketts obtained a county permit to build, and started laying gravel. But then they were blindsided by EPA, which came in and claimed the property is “wetlands” — and ordered them to return it to the agency’s liking, on pain of astronomical fines.

The Sacketts wanted to contest the claim that their land is “wetlands” — but the Ninth Circuit ruled that they would first have to go through a years-long “wetlands” permit process, which could cost 12 times the value of their land!

Represented by attorneys with PLF, the Sacketts are asking the Supreme Court: When property owners are hit by an EPA wetlands “compliance order,” do they have a right to meaningful judicial review — or is EPA effectively above the law?

About Pacific Legal Foundation: Donor-supported PLF (www.pacificlegal.org) is the leading watchdog organization that litigates, without charge, for limited government, property rights, individual rights, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations, in courts nationwide. The Sackett case marks the seventh time that the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a PLF case for review. Previous high-profile PLF property rights victories at the Supreme Court include Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987); Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997); Palazollo v. Rhode Island (2001); and Rapanos v. United States(2006).

Case Attorneys

Reed Hopper

Senior Attorneys

Reed Hopper is a Senior Attorney in PLF’s Environmental Law Practice Group. He oversees the Foundation’s Endangered Species Act Program that is designed to ensure that species protections are balanced … ›

View profile

Damien M. Schiff

Senior Attorneys

Currently a Senior Attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, Damien joined PLF in 2005.  His practice has focused on federal and state environmental and land-use issues.  Damien was counsel of record … ›

View profile

Tony Francois

Senior Attorneys

Tony Francois is an attorney in PLF’s Sacramento office, and has litigated cases around the country defending Americans’ property rights from land use and environmental restrictions. He is a member … ›

View profile

Case Commentary

See all posts
Post

PLF's Sackett and Hawkes victories come to Michigan

Marquette County, perched on the edge of Lake Superior, is one of the most populated counties in Michigan’s upper peninsula. In order to decrease traffic and to increase safety through … ›

Read more
Post

By Reed Hopper

How Sackett saved Andy Johnson

Pacific Legal Foundation has a long history in the U.S. Supreme Court.  It has won seven cases in a row, with two more pending.  Most of these cases relate to … ›

Read more
Post

By Damien M. Schiff

A response to a Sackett critique

In Sackett’s Limit,  Nathaniel Johnson argues that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA, which holds that EPA compliance orders issued under the Clean Water Act are … ›

Read more