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?
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...
Here is the opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf
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.
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
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).
9-0? I will admit... I would not have seen this turning out that way.
“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.
Ninth Circus overruled AGAIN
Perhaps there is yet hope....
I hope the EPA has to pay their legal expenses for a frivolous prosecution.
GOOD NEWS!!
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.