Yes, but only a step it seems. They have the right to spend their money and go to court. How marvelous of the SCOTUS to affirm this......!
it would be nice if any further judgements against the EPA would have to come straight out of the pockets of those individuals who issued these restrictions. I supposed that would be pure fantasy though.
Primarily, I want to know why this couple was targeted.
Case 1: They claimed a farmers ditch was a wetland. They lost.
Case 2: A house had burnt down which was on a creek. They said no way we could "re-build" there. We went after them on "loss of value"...and we won.
Case 3: A elderly gentleman wanted to build on old family land that originally had a house and old orchard. We were ab;e to find the foundation AND photos of what was once an historic house. We won.
Case 4: Made the newspapers. There was a house on a hill with a patio and it was beginning to sluff off...and the patio was endangered. The sluffing was due to e NEW MEANDER cutting into the bank. Little baby fish were living in the meander. They would not let us get back to the natural shore....which was shown on old State quads and the original subdivision.
It was a tremendous expense but we managed to pin the bank back....although we did lose the patio. All for some damn little fish which are over that creek.