(Links in process)
The Sacketts have been at the Supreme court twice. The first time, the question was whether an EPA compliance order could be challenged in court. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that it could.
The second case has more far reaching consequences in that it gives the current Supreme Court license to answer the question: what exactly are the EPA-protected waters of the US (WOTUS)?
The question was whether an EPA compliance order could be considered an agency final action, and challenged in court.
Idaho District Court
The *RECAP court docket for the original Sackett v. EPA court case in Idaho, 2008, and any freely downloadable copies of court documents it contains.
Documents not held at RECAP for this case:
Document 1-2: Attachment B
Document 1-3: Attachment C
Document 1-4: Attachment D
Document 14: Motion to dismiss
Document 15: Memorandum in support
Document 15-1: Attachment A
Document 15-2: Attachment B
Document 15-3: Attachment C
Document 15-4: Attachment D
Document 19: Response to motion to dismiss
Document 20: Reply to response
Document 22: Judgement to dismiss
Document 23: Motion for reconsideration
Document 23-1: Memorandum in support
Document 26: Memorandum in opposition
Document 27: Reply to response
Document 28: Order denying motion for reconsideration
EPA Administrative Record
The administrative record includes all documents the Department considered when making the decision.
EPA Administrative Record for Sackett compliance order, including copies of all documents.
Copy of docket
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
PRE-ENFORCEMENT JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE ORDER VIOLATE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE?
Docket for original Supreme Court case related to the Sacketts in 2012.
Articles related to first case
Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute entry
SCOTUSBlog Lyle Dennistan: Opinion recap: Taking EPA to court
ABA: Sackett v. EPA: Implications for administrative compliance
Nina Mendelson: In Sackett v. EPA, Troubling Potential for SCOTUS to Undermine Government’s Ability to Promptly Respond to Environmental Threats
Supreme Court case involving Idaho lake house ignites conservative cause against EPA
Lowell Rothschild Before and After Sacket vs US EPA
Spokesman-Review Priest Lake couple’s land dispute with EPA going to high court
NPR When Property Rights, Environmental laws collide
The Sacketts Got Their Day in Court on the Merits; Another Lesson in Being Careful What You Wish For
Craig Pittman Supreme Court gets a chance to botch another wetlands case
Sacketts likely to win Supreme Court case, law profs say
Current Sackett v EPA case
Idaho District Court
— post appeal and Supreme Court decision —
Document 54: Motion to stay litigation
Document 56: Stipulation to stay
Document 59: Government answer to complaint
Document 60: Scheduling form – litigation plan
Document 62-1: Index certification
Document 62-2: Administrative Record Index
Document 67: STIPULATION Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order
Document 73: RESPONSE to Motion re 70 MOTION to Strike
Document 73-1, Document 73-2, Document 73-3
Document 76: MEMORANDUM/BRIEF filed by Chantell Sackett, Michael Sackett Request for Judicial Notice
Document 77: MEMORANDUM/BRIEF re 76 Memorandum/Brief
Document 82: MEMORANDUM/BRIEF re 77 Memorandum/Brief
Document 84: REPLY to Response to Motion re 70 MOTION to Strike 62 Administrative Record
Document 84-1: Attachment A
Document 85: MOTION File Surreply to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike
Document 85-1: Memorandum in support
Document 88-1: Exhibit A – Supplemental Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Document 90: RESPONSE to Motion re 88 MOTION to Supplement Complaint
Document 91: REPLY to Response to Motion re 88 MOTION
Document 99: REVISED JOINT LITIGATION PLAN
Document 101: The United States’ ANSWER to 98 Amended Complaint
Document 103-1: Memorandum in support
Document 105-1: Memorandum in support
Document 105-2: Exhibit
Document 109: Response to motion
Document 112: Reply to Response
Document 116: Notice by USEPA
Copy of docket
Document 51: Sackett supplemental brief
Document 54: EPA supplemental brief
THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE NINTH CIRCUIT SET FORTH THE PROPER TEST FOR DETERMINING WHETHER WETLANDS ARE “WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES” UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT, 33 U.S.C. §1362(7).
Docket for latest Supreme Court challenge.
SCOTUSBlog entries for latest Supreme Court Challenge.
EPA Proposes to Use Science to Identify Waters of the United States. I’m Shocked, Shocked.
E & E News: Pivotal Supreme Court term begins with WOTUS war
Vox: The Supreme Court case that’s likely to handcuff the Clean Water Act
High Country News: Will the Supreme Court gut the Clean Water Act?
Wetlands case tops court agenda
Will Sackett v. EPA Clarify the Scope of Federal Regulatory Jurisdiction Over Wetlands?
The Supreme Court appears determined to shrink the Clean Water Act
Supreme Court appears to back EPA in WOTUS war
General and Related
A Brief Overview of Rulemaking and Judicial Review
Development authority seeks wetland permit for Bryan County ‘mega-site’
*RECAP is an effort to make PACER federal court documents freely available to the public. People use a browser extension for RECAP when accessing a court document. A copy of that document is then also loaded to the RECAP stores and made available for everyone at no additional charge.
The documents I have were downloaded before I installed the RECAP browser extension. Unfortunately, I can’t donate them to RECAP as the organization has no way of vetting that the documents are legitimate and untainted.