Sackett v. EPA: How One Couple's Battle Against the Feds Might Protect Your Land

The decision in the Supreme Court case Sackett v. EPA, due later this spring, could very well affect the meaning of property rights and due process in the United States. So how did a small-town couple from Northern Idaho ever become the center of such a momentous case? Reason.tv talked with the Sacketts and their attorney to find out.

Mike Sackett dreamed of building a home on Idaho's Priest Lake ever since he camped there with friends in high school.

"I remember coming home, told my mom and dad that I was going to move to Priest Lake, and they just said, 'Oh, no you're not.' And I said, 'Oh yeah. Yeah I am,'" Sackett said.

Years later, Sackett realized that dream when he and his wife, Chantelle Sackett, bought a plot of land near Priest Lake and started to build. After securing the necessary permits from local authorities, the Sacketts were only three days into the process of clearing the land when officials from the EPA showed up and put their dreams on hold.

The EPA informed the Sacketts that they suspected they were building on wetlands and had to cease work immediately. The Sacketts were stunned because their property was a completely landlocked lot within an existing subdivision. When Chantelle Sackett asked for evidence, the EPA pointed her to the National Fish and Wildlife Wetlands Inventory, which showed them that their lot... was not on an existing wetland.

The EPA responded issued what's known as a compliance order, which said that the Sacketts were in violation of the Clean Water Act and subject to fines of up to $37,500 a day.

"You go to bed with that on your mind every night," said Mike Sackett, who owns a contracting company. "It's been painful personally. It's been painful on our business."

The EPA refused to offer any documentation or evidence for its position, even after the Sacketts hired their own scientists to refute the wetlands claim. Feeling they had no other choice, they tried to take the EPA to court. Unfortunately, not even this was an option, because the EPA maintained that a compliance order is nothing more than a warning and that they cannot be challenged until they actually enforce the fines, which were racking up by the day.

"The only way the Sacketts could get judicial review that way, was by ignoring the compliance order," said Damien Schiff, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which took up the Sacketts' case. "EPA still might just sit on its hands and let the possible fines pile up."

Schiff and the Pacific Legal Foundation lost to the EPA in lower courts, but this afforded them the opportunity to take the case to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments in early January 2012. Schiff and the Sacketts both felt heartened by what transpired there.

"I was surprised by some of the questions that came from the justices," said Mike Sackett. "They were questions that we would've asked."

If the Sacketts do win in the Supreme Court, they will then have the opportunity to actually challenge the EPA's compliance order in the lower courts. Just having the opportunity to challenge that, says Schiff, would be a major victory for property rights and for due process of law.

"The agency says it doesn't want to go into court, it shouldn't have to go into court," said Schiff. "The chutzpah, the arrogance, is, frankly, almost unimaginable."

About 7.30 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Sharif Matar. Additional camera by Paul Detrick, Tracy Oppenheimer, and Weissmueller. Additional footage courtesy of the Pacific Legal Foundation. Music: "Water" by Big Blood, "City Night Line" by Cobra avec Panther, "The River Who Drinks All I've Had" by Makunouchi Bento, "Film 1" by Torture Super Sonic.

Visit http://reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel, http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c..., to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

• Category

  News & Politics

[Paul Schlote]

THEY WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



[redcups21]

Break out the fine china, chill the lemonade and tie a yellow ribbon around the old oak tree because this family just won the Supreme Court ruling.

[islamiscrap8888]

I'm so thankful I'm not a productive member of society. If i was i would be screwed.

[JonathonRedley]

You say it as though without the EPA, our environment is doomed.

There can be good brought from a regulatory agency...if it is properly limited.

But limits are a dirty word for the EPA these days, it seems.

[BeaverCreekHandR]

The EPA is not a constitutionally authorized entity & violate the Constitution routinely. This is a control issue & not about protecting the water and air. To not recognize this as a control issue and violation of the Constitution is not just plain stupid, it is shortsighted. You cannot justify the EPA's actions while they violate the Constitution. Individual Constitutional rights are paramount. What happened here is nothing short of tyranny pure and simple.

[Domanihatu]

Everyone I've seen bashing the EPA is just plain stupid... What good are today's American jobs if in 50 years American air will be unbreakable and American water will be undrinkable?

[tomanylaws]

Never did like the EPA. But just another part of the government thinking they can do whatever they want and get away with it

[Tariff Risinger]

That's why it needs to be said that a vote for Obama is a vote for liberalism, communism and globalism. Help bring America back to its Judeo-Christian roots of freedom and justice according to our "inalienalble rights" as given to us by our Creator. No government can truly set you free. Our freedom comes from the teachings and principles of Jesus Christ found in the word of God. When those principles are applied in society, that society is truly blessed with liberty and justice for all.

[docsimonson]

They may have won the Supreme Court battle, but the EPA can still drag them through the courts for years to come, and, worse, it will be the same courts that weren't going to allow the Sacketts their day in court to begin with. I do hope they are able to win their case, but even more, I hope the regulators become regulated. Like a badly behaving dog, they need to be controlled.

[medlock01]

Based on the stupid notion that if the Feds don't pass a law or have a gang of thugs then your drinking water will be dirty. Idiotic to the extreme, but the average American believes it.

[MrGrey0321]

Its a good thing. The Sacketts are better people than I am. My position is that the cost in resouces, materials, and possibly human life issued to the "agency" that tries to remove me from what is rigthfully mine, will greatly out weigh the value of that property. Kudos to you Mr. Sackett for putting your huge balls in a wheel barrow and letting the EPA know they are not as "almighty" as the claim.