In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA’s contention that a couple does not have the right to go to court when disputing the agency. (See my previous post on the Sacketts who have been trying to build their Idaho home, but the EPA won’t let them.)
The Washington Post has the latest.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled for an Idaho couple who have been in a four-year battle with the Environmental Protection Agency over the government’s claim that the land on which they plan to build a home contains sensitive wetlands.
The decision allows Mike and Chantell Sackett to go to court to challenge the agency’s order.
[...]
The question for the justices was whether the couple had the right at that point to appear before a judge and contest the agency’s contention that their land contained wetlands subject to the Clean Water Act.
Scalia joked in summarizing the decision from the bench that the Sacketts were surprised by the EPA decision that their land contained navigable waters of the United States “having never seen a ship or other vessel cross their yard.”
[...]
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined in the criticism in a concurring opinion, saying the position taken by the federal government in the case “would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency employees.” (Read More)
The people at the EPA think they’re above the law. This ruling says they are not.
Update: Linked by Katy Pundit – thanks!
This is a small victory and a rare brake on the accretion of power by the regulatory agencies. I am convinced that regulatory agencies, that turn out regulations with the force of law, even though the regulations have never been voted upon by our elected representatives, constitute the single greatest long term threat to our nation and our form of government. Further, it violates Art. I Sec. I of the Constitution which provides that all legislative powers of our nation reside in Congress. I make the case at http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2012/03/end-tyranny-no-regulation-without.html
If you agree with the scope of this problem, please pick up the issue yourself on your blog.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9
I wouldn’t be surprised that as petulant as obama is, he doesn’t pull a legal (but morally reprehensible) trick to get even with the Sacketts for defying his EPA “comrades”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7
Four years of government abuse against a couple legally trying to live the traditional American dream. Government attempting to bankrupt them using the courts.
Yet we have the Army Corp of Engineers, Interior Dept, and local DEC destroying dams and the intentional mismanagement of waterways to flood farmland, business, and living communities to return land back to its natural state. Advocate for small, limited government.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6
[...] Supreme Court Rules Against EPA in Unanimous Decision [...]
Like or Dislike:
2
What? The EPA’s word is no longer a religious edict!
Strange.
Like or Dislike:
3