Sackett v. EPA

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A): judicial review allowed?; the Clean Water Act prohibits “the discharge of any pollutant by any person,” 33 U. S. C. §1311, without a permit, into “navigable waters,”§1344. Upon determining that a violation has occurred, the Envi­ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) may either issue a compliance order or initiate a civil enforcement action. §1319(a)(3). The result­ing civil penalty may not “exceed [$37,500] per day for each viola­tion.” §1319(d). The Government contends that the amount doubles to $75,000 when the EPA prevails against a person who has been is­sued a compliance order but has failed to comply. The Sacketts, petitioners here, received a compliance order from the EPA, which stated that their residential lot contained navigable waters and that their construction project violated the Act. The Sacketts sought declarative and injunctive relief in the Federal Dis­trict Court, contending that the compliance order was “arbitrary [and] capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A), and that it deprived them of due process in viola­tion of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court dismissed the claims for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit af­firmed, concluding that the Clean Water Act precluded pre­enforcement judicial review of compliance orders and that such pre­clusion did not violate due process; held: the Sacketts may bring a civil action under the APA to challenge the issuance of the EPA’s order; the APA provides for judicial review of “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 U. S. C. §704. The compliance order here has all the hallmarks of APA finality. Through it, the EPA “determined” “rights or obligations,” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 178, requiring the Sacketts to restore their property according to an agency-approved plan and to give the EPA access. Also, “legal consequences . . . flow” from the order, ibid., which, according to the Government’s litigating position, exposes the Sacketts to double penalties in future enforcement proceedings. The order also severely limits their ability to obtain a permit for their fill from the Army Corps of Engineers, see 33 U. S. C. §1344; 33 CFR§326.3(e)(1)(iv). Further, the order’s issuance marks the “consumma­tion” of the agency’s decisionmaking process, Bennett, supra, at 178, for the EPA’s findings in the compliance order were not subject to further agency review. The Sacketts also had “no other adequate remedy in a court,” 5 U. S. C. §704. A civil action brought by the EPA under 33 U. S. C. §1319 ordinarily provides judicial review in such cases, but the Sacketts cannot initiate that process. And each day they wait, they accrue additional potential liability. Applying to the Corps of Engineers for a permit and then filing suit under the APA if that permit is denied also does not provide an adequate remedy for the EPA’s action; the Clean Water Act is not a statute that “preclude[s] judicial review” under the APA, 5 U. S. C. §701(a)(1). The APA creates a “presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action.” Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 349. While this presumption “may be overcome by inferences of intent drawn from the statutory scheme as a whole,” ibid., the Government’s ar­guments do not support an inference that the Clean Water Act’s stat­utory scheme precludes APA review (U.S. S. Ct., 21.03.12, Sackett v. EPA, J. Scalia, unanimous).

Procédure administrative fédérale, droit de recours devant un Tribunal ordinaire contre une décision administrative ? Oui, mais en l’espèce, les voies de droit administratives doivent avoir été épuisées, et aucune autre autorité judiciaire ne doit être en mesure, par voie d’action directe, de réparer le préjudice allégué. La loi sur la procédure administrative fédérale crée une présomption en faveur d’un recours devant un Tribunal. Cette présomption peut être renversée par une loi fédérale qui indiquerait expressément ou implicitement que le recours judiciaire est exclu.