No, the EPA didn't sue them. That's what the case is actually all about.
EPA told the couple that their property is a wetland, and if they build on it they will face a fine of $37,500 per day. The couple said, no, it's not a wetland. The EPA said, OK, go ahead and build on it, and then we'll sue you for the $37,500 per day, and then the court will decide if it's a wetland or not.
The couple then sued the EPA so it could get a court decision on whether it's a wetland or not before they build; the theory of their lawsuit is that if the EPA is right and they are wrong, they want to know it before they incur ruinous fines.
The lower courts said that they can't sue the EPA, they have to wait for the EPA to sue them. That's the only issue before the Court: not whether the property is a wetland, but whether they can sue before they build.
The facts are so sympathetic for the couple, and the EPA is being so heavy-handed, that the couple will probably win. But the usual rule in most areas of law is the other way: for example, I can't sue the police before I shoot someone to get an advisory ruling if it would be self-defense or murder.
that the couple will probably win.
You are right - I got the info wrong. But I do hope the couple wins and builds their dream house.
>The couple then sued the EPA so it could get a court decision on whether it’s a wetland or not before they build; the theory of their lawsuit is that if the EPA is right and they are wrong, they want to know it before they incur ruinous fines.
They should have incurred the ruinous fines and then added to their challenge of it the 8th amendment.