U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the EPA can evade judicial review
PLF’s latest case at the High Court asks: Can EPA block lawsuits against its ‘Waters of the United States’ land grab?
Washington, D.C.; October 5, 2017: Can federal bureaucrats insulate their regulations from review by arbitrarily restricting their victims’ ability to sue? Can they distort statutory guidelines in a way that limits the public’s access to justice?
These questions will be before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 11, when it hears National Association of Manufacturers v. U.S. Department of Defense.
The case deals with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) attempt to curtail review of its “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) regulation—the sweeping rule that would vastly expand the reach of the Clean Water Act, threatening millions of property owners with unjustified federal oversight.
Pacific Legal Foundation represents a number of farmers, ranchers, and other landowners from across the country who have challenged the WOTUS rule—and who, in this litigation, seek to stop the EPA from unlawfully limiting their right to do so.
“We are asking the justices to reject the EPA’s contortion of the law to shield its land grab from judicial scrutiny,” said PLF Senior Attorney M. Reed Hopper.
Under the terms of the Clean Water Act, people who are harmed by EPA rules like the WOTUS regulation can sue in any federal district court, within six years of the rule’s issuance. But the EPA is trying to require that lawsuits only be 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.
“The EPA cannot be allowed to rewrite the law to limit access to the courts,” said Hopper. “Americans who are affected by overzealous bureaucrats must have full freedom to seek the protection of the judiciary.
“Although the WOTUS rule is being revised by the Trump Administration, the outcome of this case is still an urgent matter,” he continued. “Who knows whether revisions will go far enough? Moreover, if the EPA succeeds in blocking lawsuits over the WOTUS rule, other government agencies could use the same ploy to shield their regulations from judicial review.”
“Pacific Legal Foundation fights to defend individual liberty against overreach by the administrative state,” said PLF President and CEO Steven D. Anderson. “As shown by this case, keeping unelected bureaucracies in check requires keeping courts open to their victims.”
More information can be found at: pacificlegal.org/WOTUSvenue.
About Pacific Legal Foundation
PLF litigates nationwide to secure all Americans’ inalienable rights to live responsibly and productively in their pursuit of happiness. PLF combines strategic and principled litigation, communications, and research to achieve landmark court victories enforcing the Constitution’s guarantee of individual liberty.
Case CommentarySee all posts
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.Read more
We reported here that the Administration had proposed withdrawing the 2015 WOTUS rule as directed by Executive Order And, that EPA would soon be issuing a new rule defining “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act According to a recent statement by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the EPA will issue a Notice of Proposed Rule-making in December, 2017, along the lines of Justice Scalia’s opinion in Rapanos v United States A formal draft will follow and a final rule adopted, probably in 2018 Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress will have an opportunity to accept or reject theRead more
Today Pacific Legal Foundation asked the Ninth Circuit to accept an amicus brief, written on behalf of Mike and Chantell Sackett, as well as John Duarte and Duarte Nursery, supporting the defendant in United States v Joseph David Robertson The issue we comment upon involves how the courts should apply the Supreme Court’s Rapanos decision Since PLF argued and won Rapanos, it makes eminent sense for PLF to explain why the government unfairly appliedRead more