Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

4 

SACKETT v. EPA 

Opinion of the Court 

“1.11  [The Sacketts’] discharge of pollutants into wa­
ters  of  the  United  States  at  the  Site  without  [a]  per­
mit constitutes a violation of section 301 of the Act, 33 
U. S. C. §1311.”  App. 19–20. 

On  the  basis  of  these  findings  and  conclusions,  the  order 
directs  the  Sacketts,  among  other  things,  “immediately
[to]  undertake  activities  to  restore  the  Site  in  accordance
with [an EPA-created] Restoration Work Plan” and to “pro- 
vide  and/or  obtain  access  to  the  Site  . . .  [and]  access  to 
all records and documentation related to the conditions at 
the  Site  . . .  to  EPA  employees  and/or  their  designated 
representatives.”  Id., at 21–22, ¶¶2.1, 2.7.

The  Sacketts,  who  do  not  believe  that  their  property  is
subject  to  the  Act,  asked  the  EPA  for  a  hearing,  but  that
request was denied.  They then brought this action in the
United  States  District  Court  for  the  District  of  Idaho, 
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.  Their complaint
contended that the EPA’s issuance of 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  “life,  liberty,  or  property,  without  due
process of law,” in violation of the Fifth Amendment.  The 
District  Court  dismissed  the  claims  for  want  of  subject­
matter  jurisdiction,  and  the  United  States  Court  of  Ap­
peals  for  the  Ninth  Circuit  affirmed,  622  F. 3d  1139
(2010). 
It  concluded  that  the  Act  “preclude[s]  pre­
enforcement  judicial  review  of  compliance  orders,”  id.,  at 
1144,  and  that  such  preclusion  does  not  violate  the  Fifth
Amendment’s  due  process  guarantee,  id.,  at  1147.    We 
granted certiorari.  564 U. S. ___ (2011). 

II 
The Sacketts brought suit under Chapter 7 of the APA,
which  provides  for  judicial  review  of  “final  agency  action
for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.”  5 
U. S. C.  §704.    We  consider  first  whether  the  compliance