PLF and the Sacketts take EPA to the Supreme Court

They’re defending everyone’s right to a day in court if government tramples your property rights

Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contact: Damien M. Schiff

Status: U.S. Supreme Court oral argument was held January 9, 2012. Awaiting decision.

Sign up to receive email updates on the Sackett case from the PLF Liberty Blog.

Summary:
Can federal bureaucrats seize control of your hard-earned property – and deny you a meaningful right to appeal the land grab?

This is the compelling question in Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – the latest PLF case to be accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Observers on all sides see history in the making – a case that could break new ground in environmental law, and win a broad-impact precedent for property rights. Sackett could have “a sweeping effect,” UC-Davis law professor Richard Frank told NPR. It has the potential “to bolster the rights of landowners facing costly demands from the federal government,” reported Bloomberg/Business Week magazine.

A working couple gets “worked over” by a federal bureaucracy

In 2005, when they bought a small piece of land in Priest Lake, in the Idaho panhandle, Mike and Chantell Sackett never dreamed they’d be launched on a road to the highest court in the nation, to fight for fundamental principles of due process and property rights.

The Sacketts are small business owners, and they live in a rented home. Their plan was simply to build a house of their own.

And they did everything right. Their parcel is in a residential area – a platted subdivision – with sewer and water hookups. They obtained all the needed permits to begin building.

But when they began laying gravel, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency swooped in without warning. The Sacketts were told their land is “wetlands.” They were ordered to return their property to EPA’s liking – on pain of $37,500 per day in fines!

Shocked, the Sacketts thought: There must be some mistake! They hired a soil expert and a biologist, who provided a certification that their parcel is not a wetland.

But EPA was unmoved.

The Ninth Circuit puts an impossibly high price on justice

Mike and Chantell wanted to challenge the “wetlands” finding in court – but EPA (and the Ninth Circuit) said, No: They would have to restore their property (at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars), seek a “permit” (costing 12 times the purchase price of the land!), and bring a legal case when the permit was denied. Or, alternatively, they could violate EPA’s commands, and be hit with ruinous fines.

Sacketts Empty Lot

Either way, the courtroom doors were slammed in their faces – unless they could pay a king’s ransom for access to justice.

Representing the Sacketts, PLF attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court, and in late June the justices announced that they will hear the case in their 2011-2012 term.

At issue: property owners’ right to their day in court

The issue before the court is one of fundamental due process: If EPA declares somebody’s property to be “wetlands” and subject to federal control, can the owners appeal to a court of law, or are the bureaucrats immune from meaningful review and accountability?

PLF Senior Staff Attorney Damien Schiff will argue the case at the High Court. “Should EPA be a law unto itself, without having to answer to the courts and the Constitution?” he asks. “We believe the answer is, clearly, No.

“Moreover, charging property owners a sky-high admissions fee to get into court isn’t just wrong, it’s flat-out unconstitutional.

“This case is garnering attention because it’s a case that could happen to you. The Sacketts are not big developers. They just wanted a family home.”

Says Mike Sackett: “We’re very glad that the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of our case. We’re fighting not just for our own rights, but for all property owners, and for the right of anyone who has been abused by government to have their day in court.”