Posted on 06/01/2016 5:49:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
The White House’s Clean Water Act requires property owners to surrender possession of land that falls under its jurisdiction. The law, which has frustrated landowners for 40 years, was expanded last year when the Obama administration issued new rules for which bodies of water can be claimed as government property.
Hawkes Co., Inc. was one of the businesses affected by the White House’s environmental guidelines. The company, which provides peat for golf courses, was prevented from using property in Marshall County, Minnesota, because it had been deemed federally controlled wetlands by the United States Corps of Engineers. The Supreme Court took up the case last December.
On Tuesday, the justices ruled in Hawkes’ favor, declaring that landowners have the right to seek judicial review – and it was unanimous.
The court’s eight justices agreed in Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. Inc. that the Corps’ final “jurisdictional determination” regarding a peat mining company’s wetlands is a “final agency action,” and the company can challenge it like any regulation.
Pacific Legal Foundation, which had represented the company in court, said the victory proved landowners were no longer at the “mercy” of the government.
“Everyone who values property rights and access to justice should welcome this historic victory,” PLF Principal Attorney M. Reed Hopper said in a statement.
Oh For the love of peat.
There are some very lovely and feminine short hairstyles. Janine Turner comes to mind.
This EPA woman is not one of those. Of course, I am not a looks snob. Her actions and ideology are the truly ugly things.
It is better that the govey absorb the costs rather than the private citizen, until this mess gets corrected. The unlimited funds of the govey will win the case every time even when they lose, because of the legal fees the defendant/plaintiff must pay.
What the hell is that, Kaslin?
First, thanks for all the wonderful work you do for FR.
Second, you've been here long enough to know what responses would come from the picture you poste but you posted it anyway. What gives?
>It is better that the govey absorb the costs rather than the private citizen, until this mess gets corrected.
1) Govt has NO $$ it did not 1st take from the taxpayer
2) This is a mess OF *govt* creation. It is the GOVT foisting this upon the masses.
>The unlimited funds of the govey will win the case every time even when they lose, because of the legal fees the defendant/plaintiff must pay.
True (see #1, above). Unfortunately, the Right/Libert. don’t have an effective ‘counter-attack’ to the Left...
I m with you on all points, it’s just pie-in-the sky for both of us. In any case, the private individual should not be bankrupted in defending against bogus government charges. It would be far better to nip this in the bud by reigning in these out of control agencies or eliminating them altogether.
Concur. Unfort. we have no one in the Congress willing, let alone the fortitude from the States to flex their own, inherit 9th/10th muscle.
Regardless, We the People, and our Freedoms/Rights, lose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.