Supreme Court Justices Blast EPA ..... - News and Current Events | futures trading

Go Back

> Futures Trading, News, Charts and Platforms > Traders Hideout > News and Current Events

Supreme Court Justices Blast EPA .....
Started:January 10th, 2012 (03:26 AM) by kbit Views / Replies:616 / 0
Last Reply:January 10th, 2012 (03:26 AM) Attachments:0

Welcome to

Welcome, Guest!

This forum was established to help traders (especially futures traders) by openly sharing indicators, strategies, methods, trading journals and discussing the psychology of trading.

We are fundamentally different than most other trading forums:
  • We work extremely hard to keep things positive on our forums.
  • We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendor advertising in posts.
  • We firmly believe in openness and encourage sharing. The holy grail is within you, it is not something tangible you can download.
  • We expect our members to participate and become a part of the community. Help yourself by helping others.

You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free and simple, and we will never resell your private information.

-- Big Mike

Thread Tools Search this Thread

Supreme Court Justices Blast EPA .....

Old January 10th, 2012, 03:26 AM   #1 (permalink)
Elite Member
Aurora, Il USA
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: TradeStation
Favorite Futures: futures
kbit's Avatar
Posts: 5,839 since Nov 2010
Thanks: 3,275 given, 3,321 received

Supreme Court Justices Blast EPA .....

WASHINGTON (AP) Several conservative members of the Supreme Court criticized the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday for heavy-handed enforcement of rules affecting homeowners after the government told an Idaho couple they can't challenge an order declaring their future home site a "protected wetlands."

Justice Antonin Scalia assailed the "high-handedness" of the environmental agency when dealing with private property, and Justice Samuel Alito described some of the EPA's actions as "outrageous," arguing that most people would say "this kind of thing can't happen in the United States."

The EPA said that Mike and Chantell Sackett illegally filled in most of their 0.63-acre lot with dirt and rocks in preparation for building a home. The agency said the property is a wetlands that cannot be disturbed without a permit. The Sacketts had none.

The couple, who attended the Supreme Court arguments, said they had no reason to suspect there were wetlands on their property. They paid $23,000 for their property in 2005 and decided two years later to build a three-bedroom home. Workers spent three days filling in just under a half-acre of land.

Three EPA officials showed up, said they believed the land was wetlands, asked for a permit and told the workers to stop. Six months later, the EPA sent the order that triggered the court case. The Sacketts wanted to challenge that order, but lower courts have said that they cannot.

The EPA issues nearly 3,000 administrative compliance orders a year that call on alleged violators of environmental laws to stop what they're doing and repair the harm they've caused. Major business groups, homebuilders, road builders and agricultural interests all have joined the Sacketts in urging the court to make it easier to contest EPA compliance orders issued under several environmental laws.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wondered how far the Supreme Court should go in a ruling, noting that government agencies often threaten citations when people don't comply with the law. "Health inspectors go into restaurants all the time and say: 'Unless you fix this, I'm going to give you a citation.' Fire inspectors, the same thing," he said.

The Sacketts' lawyer, Damien M. Schiff, argued that they weren't trying to take away EPA's power. Environmental groups say a purpose of the orders is to make it easier to negotiate a resolution without a protracted legal fight.
"Let EPA administer the act and issue compliance orders," Schiff said. "But let's also give homeowners a fair shake, too. Let them have their day in court to contest what the agency has done."

Alito leveled some of the strongest criticism against the EPA, noting that the Sacketts had to wait until the EPA sued them to even challenge the idea that there were wetlands on their property.

"You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: 'You have filled in wetlands, so you can't build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to,'" Alito said. "You have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don't do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you."

Chief Justice John Roberts said that because of the potential fines, few people are going to challenge the EPA's determinations.

"Because of the administrative compliance order, you're really never going to be put to the test, because most land owners aren't going to say, 'I'm going to risk the $37,000 a day," Roberts said. "All EPA has to do is make whatever finding it wants, and realize that in 99 percent of the cases, it's never going to be put to the test."

The EPA's normal procedure is to contact the homeowner before issuing a compliance order, Justice Department lawyer Malcolm Stewart said. A wetlands biologist has also confirmed to The Associated Press that he advised the Sacketts in May 2007 that their property was a wetlands and that there were wetlands on three sides of their land. The Sacketts say that in 2010, other wetlands consultants examined their land and concluded that the first one was wrong.

If the Sacketts "had wanted a judicial resolution of the coverage question without subjecting themselves to potential penalties, they could have filed a permit application before discharging, they could have gotten review there. All we're saying is they can't discharge fill, wait to see whether EPA notices, and then insist upon immediate judicial review if EPA notices and objects," Stewart said.

Read more: Supreme Court Justices Blast EPA For Thwarting Couple From Building On Protected Wetlands

Reply With Quote

Reply > Futures Trading, News, Charts and Platforms > Traders Hideout > News and Current Events > Supreme Court Justices Blast EPA .....

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Upcoming Webinars and Events (4:30PM ET unless noted)

An Afternoon with FIO trader bobwest

Elite only

NinjaTrader 8: Programming Profitable Trading Edges w/Scott Hodson

Elite only

Anthony Drager: Executing on Intermarket Correlations & Order Flow, Part 2

Elite only

Adam Grimes: Five critically important keys to professional trading

Elite only

Machine Learning Concepts w/FIO member NJAMC

Elite only

MarketDelta Cloud Platform: Announcing new mobile features

Dec 1

NinjaTrader 8: Features and Enhancements

Dec 6

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Call on US Supreme Court to Hear Standard Chartered v. FINRA Quick Summary News and Current Events 0 December 7th, 2011 10:20 PM
Supreme Court to Decide Fate Of Obama's Healthcare Law Quick Summary News and Current Events 0 November 14th, 2011 11:30 AM
Obamacare Has Arrived in the Supreme Court kbit News and Current Events 0 September 28th, 2011 07:51 PM
Violent Videogames Can Be Sold to Minors: Supreme Court Quick Summary News and Current Events 0 June 27th, 2011 01:20 PM
With Rulings, Business Finds Friends on Supreme Court Quick Summary News and Current Events 0 December 19th, 2010 09:00 AM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:21 AM.

Copyright © 2016 by All information is for educational use only and is not investment advice.
There is a substantial risk of loss in trading commodity futures, stocks, options and foreign exchange products. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
no new posts

Page generated 2016-10-22 in 0.08 seconds with 19 queries on phoenix via your IP