Sackett v. EPA (10-1062)

argument 10-1062

Sackett v. EPA

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the legal dispute between the Sackett family and the EPA about?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument first this morning in case ten ten six two, SACET versus the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Shift

Michael R. Shiff 0:09

Thank you, Mr Chief Chief Justice, and may I please the Court. Mike and Chantel Sackett are here today. because four years ago the Environmental Protection Agency issued against them a compliance order Charging them with violations of the Clean Water Act. requiring that they restore their property to its alleged predisturbance wetlands conditions. and imposing upon them the threat of tens of thousands of dollars per day in civil fines if they did not immediately comply with the order. But in these four years, the SACTs have never been offered a meaningful opportunity for judicial review of the compliance order, an opportunity that they are guaranteed under the Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Antonin Scalia 0:50

Of course there would have been a daily fine with or without the compliance order, wouldn't there? if they were in indeed in in violation of the of the act.

Michael R. Shiff 1:00

Justice Glea, the fine would only have been attributable to the statute itself, but with the compliance order in effect Essentially the sackets are now subject to double liability. They can be held liable for the statute. as well as for actions inconsistent with the compliance order.

Anthony M. Kennedy 1:14

So Mr Schiff, your understanding is that each day Uh your clients are subject to thirty seven thousand five hundred dollars of fines for the violation of the statute and an additional thirty seven five for violation of the compliance order. Is that the way you understand the penalty scheme to work? Yes, yes,

Michael R. Shiff 1:34

Justice Kagan. It is and is an it is in fact, I might add, how the EPA understands the penalty provisions in its brief at pages thirty and thirty one. They essentially concede that The existence of the compliance order does subject the Sackets to liability for both violations of the statute as well as violations of the compliance

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1:52

order. But the but the Court of Appeals did say that there would be no independent liability Under the for for violation of the compliance order. That is Unless there was a violation of the statute. It would be no penalty for violation of the compliance order.

Michael R. Shiff 2:14

That is correct, Justice Ginsburg, the court held that. As a predicate for any reliability for a compliance order violation, there must be first a finding of a statutory violation, but That doesn't change the fact, even according to the Ninth Circuit, doesn't change the fact that one can still be held liable for both, that there is a distinct civil liability that is traceable only to the compliance order.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 2:38

kind of review are you seeking? I mean the one thing you could say is you dispute that this property is subject to the Act. That might be a question that's reviewable. Do you see more than that? Do you see re review at this stage of anything more than whether the property is subject to the Act.

Michael R. Shiff 3:02

No, Your Honor. We seek review of that jurisdictional question as it is incorporated into the compliance order. The compliance order is the agency action for which we believe the SACATs have a right of review under the Administrative Procedure Act. And our challenge under the APA to the compliance order is precisely that there is no jurisdiction and therefore there has been no statutory violation.

Anthony M. Kennedy 3:23

Can you tell me uh What what would be the scope of your holding? How would how would if you could write the the opinion for the court on this part of your case, what would the rule be? I I mean f uh Um health inspectors go into restaurants all the time and say, unless you fix this, I'm gonna give you a citation. uh a fire inspector is the same thing. Uh and I'm I'm I'm wondering how your general theory or your general principle that you want us to adopt would fit with uh that rather routine type of of of enforcement.

Michael R. Shiff 3:57

Well, Justice Kennedy, we do not believe that what we are articulating extends as far as as creating a right under the APA for review because a health inspector has come onto your property. All we are arguing is that the compliance order is a final agency action.