In the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, "Justices from both ends of the political spectrum seemed to think that property owners should be able to contest administrative compliance orders" from the Environmental Protection Agency, Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire reports. A court decision siding with an Idaho couple accused of polluting a wetland could affect how other federal agencies enforce regulations.
When the landowners received a notice that they could be fined $37,500 a day if they didn't remove gravel and fill dirt from their planned homesite, they sought a hearing. EPA and lower courts ruled that a hearing is required only when fines are actually levied, but justices at yesterday's oral argument were clearly not sympathetic with that position. The case raises the constitutional issue of due process, but "It may be that the justices do not have to reach the constitutional question in order for" the couple to get a hearing, Hurley writes.
"Environmentalists worry that a strong ruling in favor of the Sacketts could undermine the agency’s authority to stop polluters. But the justices sounded inclined to rule that an early hearing is called for," David Savage of the Los Angeles Times reports.
When the landowners received a notice that they could be fined $37,500 a day if they didn't remove gravel and fill dirt from their planned homesite, they sought a hearing. EPA and lower courts ruled that a hearing is required only when fines are actually levied, but justices at yesterday's oral argument were clearly not sympathetic with that position. The case raises the constitutional issue of due process, but "It may be that the justices do not have to reach the constitutional question in order for" the couple to get a hearing, Hurley writes.
"Environmentalists worry that a strong ruling in favor of the Sacketts could undermine the agency’s authority to stop polluters. But the justices sounded inclined to rule that an early hearing is called for," David Savage of the Los Angeles Times reports.
No comments:
Post a Comment