A Tale of Two Cases
It is a momentous time at the Supreme Court both with the argument this week on ObamaCare, and last week’s unanimous rebuke of the EPA. The latter should serve as a dire warning should the court uphold ObamaCare.
In 2005 Mike and Chantell Sackett bought a small piece of land so they could build a house. This was as small lot in a residential area with other houses, water and sewer hookup. By 2007 they were ready and had gotten the necessary permits and so started construction fo there new home when one day three people from the EPA showed up at the site and said this might be a wetland and that they needed to stop. Not only did they need to stop, they were also told to remove all evidence of construction and make modifications to the land that the EPA wanted done. Removing the gravel alone would have cost them $27,000 which was more than they had originally paid for the property. To make matters worse, failure to comply would result in fines from $35,000 to $75,000 per day.
The Sacketts repeatedly asked for a written document of their alleged wrongs, but it was over 7 months before they would receive one. The Sacketts did not believe their property was a wetland. After all, there was no standing water on the property, nor were there any streams or other continuous flowing water off of their property, nor did the EPA list the property in their inventory of Wetlands. The EPA did not even do the required on-site test to determine if the property was a wetland.
To make matters even worse, the Sacketts were not permitted a hearing to challenge the EPA’s ruling, nor could they take them to court to challenge the ruling. Their only recourse would be to apply to the EPA for a wetlands development permit, so they could be rejected. Only then could they challenge the EPA in court. Yet this was a process that would take many years with an estimated cost of $270,000.
Unfortunately this is not uncommon for the EPA. They can make such arbitrary rulings largely free from review of any kind, simply because they know that most people simply cannot afford either the time or the extremely high cost of fighting them. In fact, even in areas where they have been taken to court and have lost, the EPA continues to make similar rulings knowing that in most cases they are safe becuase the people affected simply cannot afford to challenge. Luckily, the Sacketts refused to submit to such tyranny. They could not go to court to challenge the EPA ruling, but they did go to court to challenge their inability to challenge the EPA.
The appellate court sided with the EPA. By the time they managed to get to the Supreme Court last week, seven years had passed representing accumulated fines of $80 million. The Supreme Court rebuked the EPA 9-0. Certainly great news for the Sacketts, and the many other facing such EPA action, but it is hardly over. Ultimately the only thing the Sacketts won was the right to have their day in court. It is unclear if the EPA will continue to drag this out, attempting to drive up the legal costs even higher. After 7 years of waiting to build their house, the Sacketts are only beginning the process of actually challenging the EPA ruling that their property is a wetland.
The case of the Sacketts should give great pause as the court hears argument on ObamaCare. ObamaCare transfers significant amounts of control over health care to the federal government, and thus to federal bureaucrats, bureaucrats just like those who arbitrarily declared the Sacketts property a wetland, denied them a hearing, and tried to deny them the right challenge them in court. As Mike Sackett described it “The EPA used bullying and threats of terrifying fines, and has made our life hell.” Yet they had simply been denied the home they were seeking to build on their own property. With ObamaCare, similar bureaucrats could just as easily be denying you your health.
For all the details on the Sackett v EPA, check out the Pacific Legal Foundation web site and consider supporting them in their defense of people like the Sacketts
