Supreme Court Makes It Easier For Landowners To Challenge Environmental Decisions

[Purveyor]

Source: Washington Post

By Robert Barnes May 31 at 6:32 PM

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for landowners to challenge the decision of federal regulators that the use of property is restricted by the Clean Water Act.

The justices ruled unanimously that property owners could file suit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over the agency’s determination that their land contains “waters of the United States” covered by the Clean Water Act, which provides criminal and civil liabilities for violations.

The government contended that such suits could be brought only after the landowner filed for a permit and was dissatisfied with the result. Alternatively, the government said, the conflict could be resolved if the owner proceeded without a permit and faced sanctions.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said neither alternative was acceptable. Proceeding without a permit opens owners to penalties of up to $37,500 a day if they are determined to have violated the act.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-makes-it-easier-for-landowners-to-challenge-environmental-decisions/2016/05/31/42c62b28-275d-11e6-b989-4e5479715b54_story.html

[bucolic_frolic]

1. The Sovereign State is yielding to the Libertarian-Business Dictatorship

and Roberts is its chief architect

[branford]

2. Do you realize the decision was unanimous,

and the EPA's actions are problematic from both a conservative and liberal perspective as explained in the concurring opinions?

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Do you realize when private property right supplant the sovereignty of the state

that the state is no longer a functioning entity?

[Throd]

4. Yeeeesh.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. There is no concept of the public good

when all laws and state actions are merely the sum of private interests

No one wants to be taxed, no one wants to go to war, no one wants
to pay more for clean air or water

so large private interests carry primacy over all else

[branford]

6. Whether you like it or not,

we have private property in this country (and virtually everywhere else), and the government, in this case the EPA, does not have unlimited power simply because they or you believe they are acting for the purported "public good" (as the unanimous court clearly understood).

This case was procedural, not really about substantive environmental law, and concerned the ability of citizens to properly and appropriately challenge government authority, ensure due process and prevent executive overreach.

This case, and a number of others recently before SCOTUS particularly concerning the Clean Water Act, simply ensures that the government follows established rules, the executive does not exceed the power invested in it by the legislature, and that citizens have practical access to the judiciary.