Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency

Supreme Court of the United States · 2012 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewFinal Agency ActionClean Water ActAPAfinal agency actionadequate remedy

Facts

The EPA issued the Sacketts an administrative compliance order asserting that their Idaho residential lot contained wetlands covered by the Clean Water Act and that they had violated the Act by placing fill material on the property without a permit. The order required them immediately to restore the site under an EPA-approved restoration plan and to provide the EPA access to the property and related records. The Sacketts asked the EPA for a hearing, but the agency denied that request. They then brought suit under the APA to challenge the order.

Issue

May recipients of an EPA Clean Water Act compliance order bring a civil action under the APA to challenge the order before the EPA initiates an enforcement action? More specifically, is such an order final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in court, and does the Clean Water Act preclude APA review?

Rule

Under the APA, agency action is reviewable when it is final agency action and there is no other adequate remedy in a court. An agency action is final when it determines rights or obligations, legal consequences flow from it, and it marks the consummation of the agency's decisionmaking process; judicial review is available unless another statute precludes review, and such preclusion is not lightly inferred because the APA carries a presumption favoring judicial review.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Toledo, Ohio, the Federal Wetlands Control Bureau sent Nora Kim an administrative order stating that her gravel placement on a lakeside parcel violated federal law. The order required her to remove the gravel within 30 days under a bureau-approved remediation plan and to allow inspectors onto the land and into related project files.

If Nora sues under the APA before the bureau files any enforcement action, what is the strongest argument that the order is final agency action?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, agency action is final when it determines rights or obligations, legal consequences flow, and it marks the consummation of the agency's process. An order that requires restoration under an agency-approved plan and compels access to property and records determines obligations, which is a core hallmark of finality.