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.
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
Yes, she is ... she wrote a concurring opinion that carefully keeps her liberal bona fides intact, hinting that she holds faith in the lower courts to side with the EPA.
Obama will just give them eminient domain powers so the next case will tie-up the entire federal court system for thirteen years
Bump
Wow. A unanimous SCOTUS triple smackdown of the District Court, the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals (they should be used to this by now!) and the EPA (they deserve a lot more smackdowns).
Even the Marxists on the court flipped the EPA the bird.
THE EPA HAS NO REDEEMING FEATURES.
>> Um....Why is $30K the magic number?
I don’t think $30K is the magic number (in the sense that a $29999 fine can’t be appealed). I submit that what Scalia is really saying is something like this:
“The EPA cannot [do something as heavy handed as] threaten[ing] fines of more than $30,000 per day [as they did in the case in question] without giving property owners the ability to challenge its actions...”
FRegards
Thanks for the ping!
This decision is merely a pheric(sp) victory! Even though its the SCOTUS and unanimous, they've only won a very limited battle and come no where near winning the infernal war!!!
I do not know.
The real crime is the EPA commissar who singled out Americans for ruin will not be held responsible. If he goes into academia it will a plus on his resume’.
No, I see it as a major victory for all of us.
This means that the EPA can no longer rule “administratively” without having to go to court, and spending time and money, as well as risking losses. And they can’t count on collecting fines until there is a judgment.
Which means that they are much less likely to make decisions like this willy-nilly.
This won’t prevent EPA over-reach, and it will still saddle people with legal costs in those cases, but there should be much less of this stuff.
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.