Posted on 03/21/2012 8:16:17 AM PDT by pabianice
Now on Fox. SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the couple that bought a house lot and was then fined $ 175,000/day by the loathsome EPA for "disturbing a wetland" that does not exist. Will be fascinating to see if any of the Rancid Media even report this.
Finally - a defense of property rights!
YEAH!
Will be fascinating to see if any of the Rancid Media even report this.
You know they won’t!
5-4? 6-3? 7-2? 8-1? 9-0?
Not yet known.
From Fox News website:
ON – The Supreme Court has unanimously sided with Idaho property owners whose plans to build a home were blocked by an Environmental Protection Agency order declaring the property contained wetlands.
In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court says Wednesday that the EPA cannot threaten fines of more than $30,000 a day without giving property owners the ability to challenge its actions.
The decision is a victory for Mike and Chantell Sackett, whose property near a scenic lake has sat undisturbed since the EPA ordered a halt in work in 2007. The agency said part of the property was a wetlands that cannot be disturbed without a permit.
The couple complained there was no reasonable way to challenge the order.
If that is the case, some victory.
Ruling was UNANIMOUS on Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency! I’d love to be in the White House now to hear Obama;s screaming tirade...
5-4... bank on it. Scary that our liberties are increasingly depnendent on the continuing health of five justices.
Here is the opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf
Rush will cover it.
5-4... bank on it. Scary that our liberties are increasingly dependent on the continuing health of five justices.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has sided with an Idaho couple in a property rights case, ruling they can go to court to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency order that blocked construction of their new home and threatened fines of more than $30,000 a day.
Wednesday’s decision is a victory for Mike and Chantell Sackett, whose property near a scenic lake has sat undisturbed since the EPA ordered a halt in work in 2007. The agency said part of the property was a wetlands that could not disturbed without a permit.
In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court rejected EPA’s argument that allowing property owners quick access to courts to contest orders like the one issued to the Sacketts would compromise the agency’s ability to deal with water pollution.
“Compliance orders will remain an effective means of securing prompt voluntary compliance in those many cases where there is no substantial basis to question their validity,” Scalia said.
5-4... bank on it. Scary that our liberties are increasingly dependent on the continuing health of five justices.
Looks like all they won was the right to sue, not an actual case on the substance yet.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/usa-court-epa-idUSL2E8CVIHY20120321
It was unanimous at the Supreme Court?
So even a wise Latina and the ACLU representative to the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, agree that the EPA is out of control here.
Well, this is a smackdown to Obama isn’t it?
9-0, unanimous
These folks bought a plot of land and started to build their house when they noticed a drainage ditch was clogged and water was backing up. The got permission from the state to clean out the ditch. The EPA then charged then with a FELONY for disturbing a "wetland" (the water backed up from the clogged ditch). The jury found them not guilty. But not to be undone, the EPA said they were going to fine them some huge amount until the "wetland" was restored.
Unfortunately, I don't believe this victory in the Supreme Court is the end of it. They were fighting for the right to challenge the EPA fines in court. They've only won the right to challenge, but they would still have to win that courtcase. So it isn't over (unless the EPA drops everything for fear of losing or bad publicity).
” They still have to go to court on the issues.
If that is the case, some victory. “
And, if memory serves, the Court that will get to decide ‘on the issues’ will be our old friend, the 9th Circus....
The decision was unanimous!
9-0? I will admit... I would not have seen this turning out that way.
Wow, this was unanimous.
Maybe this can help pave the way for more lawsuits against the EPA. For example, we’re hearing that the EPA is shutting down coal fired power plants because they don’t meet certain pollution standards. These standards were set by Obama’s EPA, without Congress being involved, just because he has his liberals running things. Perhaps this out of control EPA can be reined in, since we see here that the courts are willing to rule against some half baked administrative regulations.
“the court says Wednesday that the EPA cannot threaten fines of more than $30,000 a day without giving property owners the ability to challenge its actions.”
Um....Why is $30K the magic number? It’s just as devastating as $175K to the average person.
At one point in our country's history, that would have ended it.
Now we are all vassals of an imperial central government. When will the states wise up?
Yep. This family was on Stossel the other night. They had won their criminal case in court, but the EPA launched a civil action and tarted fining them $175,000 a day! This poor woman was in tears on Stossel. My blood was boiling! This is tyranny!
I stand corrected... somewhat. As previously stated, “Looks like all they won was the right to sue, not an actual decision against the EPA.” Wait until they come back around and it means something...
The people in this case will win.
Ninth Circus overruled AGAIN
Perhaps there is yet hope....
I hope the EPA has to pay their legal expenses for a frivolous prosecution.
Yeah, that's the first thing I wondered, too. Scalia says the EPA shouldn't levy fines of over $30,000 per day?
Some "victory".
This is a good reason that we need a new President. If he gets reelected, he will appoint more liberal judges and the decision would have been 9-0 against the people.
By the way, I wonder how the court would have ruled if the EPA fines were “only”, say, $25,000 per day?
Different outcome? Yikes.
I don’t think the EPA does, that’s the problem. Just defending yourself will bankrupt you. This is tyranny.
GOOD NEWS!!
Exactly.
And now they have won Round One the EPA will use Round Two to complete the destruction and bankruptcy.
The obvious response from Congress ought to be to reduce the EPA's annual budget to $1.00.
Today we consider only whether the dispute may be brought to court by challenging the compliance order—we do not resolve the dispute on the merits. The reader will be curious, however, to know what all the fuss is about.
This was on Stossel last weekend. The first time the courts found in their favor the Corps of Engineers backed by the EPA says thats nice but you’re in violation. Lets see if the EPA tries to downplay the SCOTUS decision.
As you said, this is probably no victory at all.
prevailing party costs and legal fees would apply.
"And there is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into “voluntary compliance” without the opportunity for judicial review—even judicial review of the question whether the regulated party is within the EPA’sjurisdiction. Compliance orders will remain an effective means of securing prompt voluntary compliance in those many cases where there is no substantial basis to question their validity".
If the media would do it’s job and report stuff like this, public outrage may rein the EPA in. The liberal media doesn’t care about this family. More hypocrisy on the media’s part!
I figured as much.
Wow! I wonder if Ginsburg is aware somebody wrote an opinion for her and voted against the EPA?
Is that true in a SCOTUS case? I don't know. Maybe Jacquerie knows or you do.
ON – The Supreme Court has unanimously sided with Idaho property owners whose plans to build a home were blocked by an Environmental Protection Agency order declaring the property contained wetlands.
In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court says Wednesday that the EPA cannot threaten fines of more than $30,000 a day without giving property owners the ability to challenge its actions.
The decision is a victory for Mike and Chantell Sackett, whose property near a scenic lake has sat undisturbed since the EPA ordered a halt in work in 2007. The agency said part of the property was a wetlands that cannot be disturbed without a permit.
The couple complained there was no reasonable way to challenge the order.
Thank you for the above information, Dr. Sivana (post #7)
Here's the SCOTUS opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.