Supreme Court, Led By Judge Scalia, Unanimously Allows Idaho Couple To Fight EPA

[Yo_Mama]

3. Our constitutional system requires

that people have access to the courts.

I don't think the 9-0 decision is a surprise; the EPA was arguing that the Sacketts had no way to challenge their order until the EPA sued to enforce it, but that meant that the EPA was allowed to build up fines in the interim. The implications are that of course most individuals would never get their day in court, because the only way to get it would be to ignore the order and build, thus forcing the EPA to sue eventually (or not). But no bank would lend on such a property. So such an order could be safely ignored (if it were not well-founded) by a wealthy person, whereas it could not be ignored by an average person.

One of the important questions to ask when such arguments are presented is always "Does this make the system work differently for rich and for poor citizens?" If the answer is yes, then there is nothing "libertarian" in deciding that such an argument should not stand. Maintaining equality of access to the legal system is a very important element of our entire system.

The basis of the constitution is a system of checks and balances, and generally the justices tend to act in unison only when that basis is obviously challenged.