3.2 Bureaucracy && Courts

    High court weighs high-profile case over wetlands, EPA fines was written by Joan Biskupic of USA TODAY on January 10, 2012. The litigants in the case are the Sacketts, the plaintiff, and the Environmental Protection Agency , the defendant. The Sacketts received an order from the EPA after began filling in land they had bought near Priest Lake in Idaho with dirt and rock so they could build a house.The order stated they were on protected wetlands and had violated the Clean Water Act by not first obtaining a permit. The Sacketts, who say they did not know their property was under such designation, tried to challenge EPA's finding that they were discharging material into a regulated wetlands. 

    The Sacketts have standing to sue because they were directly affected by the order issued to them by the EPA. The case is a justiciable dispute because the issue is capable of being settled by the court. The usual EPA practice is to inform property owners at an earlier stage that they might be on wetlands and vulnerable to a violation, which is unclear in this case. The underlying issue is not whether or not these people can build their house, but if they had their right to due process violated. 

1. Who is the plaintiff?
The Sacketts

2. Do they have standing to sue? Why?

Yes, because they bought this land and have invested in building a house on it

3. What is a compliance order?

It is an order in which you have to do a certain thing or pay a fine 

4. In this case, what does the plaintiff stand to lose if they lose the case?

The money they have put into building a house and $75000 daily

5. How does this issue provide an example of "red tape"?

Its an example of "red tape" because its really a simple issue of paperwork

6. How is the Court expected to rule?

In favor of the EPA 

7. Why is this case being heard at the Supreme Court?

It has passed through district courts and the court of appeals until it reached the Supreme Court

8. What would the  National Resources Defense Council be an example of, and how might they be involved in the case?

It could be an example of an interest group and might be involved to provide an amicus curiae brief 

9. How does the compliance order potentially violate the couple's due process?

EPA's use of non-reviewable compliance orders

10. What is the central issue of this case? (it's not about whether or not these people can build their house)

whether EPA's use of non-reviewable compliance orders violates the Sacketts' right to due process of law

11. What is the Clean Water Act?

The Clean Water Act is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution.

12. What does the lawyer for the EPA say the couple should have done?

He suggested the Sacketts should have consulted with the EPA beforehand.

13. Why do people hate the bureaucracy?
People hate the bureaucracy because they think it is too big and causes problems for individuals on issues of minor importance