| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency
''Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency'', , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Clean Water Act is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires an appeals process for any ruling by a federal agency. The Court ruled that the availability of immediate judicial review of compliance orders issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency is required.
== Background ==
The plaintiffs, Mike and Chantell Sackett, purchased, approximately, a two-third acre parcel of land (0.62) near Priest Lake, Idaho, on which they planned to build a house. Shortly after they began clearing the lot, the Sacketts received a Compliance Order from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, asserting that the property was subject to the Clean Water Act, and that the Sacketts had illegally placed fill material into jurisdictional wetlands on their property. After trying unsuccessfully to obtain a hearing from the EPA, the Sacketts filed suit demanding an opportunity to contest the jurisdictional basis of the Compliance Order.〔Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Sackett v. EPA, No. 10-1062.〕 Both the District Court〔(Sackett v. EPA, 08-cv-185-N-EJL (Idaho Dist. 2008) ).〕 and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals〔(Sackett v. EPA, 622 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2010) ).〕 ruled in favor of the government, holding that the validity of the Compliance Order could be challenged only if and when EPA brings an enforcement action seeking to impose civil and criminal penalties against the Sacketts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, limited to the following questions: "1. May petitioners seek pre-enforcement judicial review of the administrative compliance order pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §704? 2. If not, does petitioners' inability to seek preenforcement judicial review of the administrative compliance order violate their rights under the Due Process clause?"〔Supreme Court order dated June 28, 2011.〕
The Sacketts, technically consulted by wetland experts Ray and Susan Kagel of Kagel Environmental, LLC,〔http://www.session.com/blog/2012/08/22/epa-drops-alleged-clean-water-act-violations-against-client-in-the-aftermath-of-the-watershed-united-states-supreme-court-cwa-case-sackett-v-the-united-states-of-america/〕 and represented by Damien M. Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation, filed their opening brief on September 23, 2011.〔(Supreme Court Docket, Case No. 10-1062. )〕 Amicus briefs in support of the petitioners were filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Association of Homebuilders. The opposition brief of the Solicitor General of the United States was filed on November 23, 2011.〔Id.〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|