Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  566 U. S. ____ (2012) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

order is final agency action.  There is no doubt it is agency 
action, which the APA defines as including even a “failure 
to act.”  §§551(13), 701(b)(2).  But is it final?  It has all of 
the hallmarks of APA finality that our opinions establish. 
Through the order, the EPA “ ‘determined’ ” “ ‘rights or ob­
ligations.’ ”    Bennett  v.  Spear,  520  U. S.  154,  178  (1997) 
(quoting  Port  of  Boston  Marine  Terminal  Assn.  v.  Re- 
deriaktiebolaget  Transatlantic,  400  U. S.  62,  71  (1970)).
By reason of the order, the Sacketts have the legal obliga­
tion  to  “restore”  their  property  according  to  an  agency­
approved  Restoration Work  Plan,  and  must give  the  EPA 
access to their property and to “records and documentation
related to the conditions at the Site.”  App. 22, ¶2.7.  Also, 
“ ‘legal consequences . . . flow’ ” from issuance of the order. 
Bennett,  supra,  at  178  (quoting  Marine  Terminal,  supra,
at  71).  For  one,  according  to  the  Government’s  current
litigating  position,  the  order  exposes  the  Sacketts  to  dou­
ble penalties in a future enforcement proceeding.2  It also 
severely limits the Sacketts’ ability to obtain a permit for 
their fill from the Army Corps of Engineers, see 33 U. S. C.
§1344.  The Corps’ regulations provide that, once the EPA 
has  issued  a  compliance  order  with  respect  to  certain 
property,  the  Corps  will  not  process  a  permit  application 
for  that  property  unless  doing  so  “is  clearly  appropriate.”
33 CFR §326.3(e)(1)(iv) (2011).3 

The  issuance  of  the  compliance  order  also  marks  the 
“ ‘consummation’ ”  of  the  agency’s  decisionmaking  process. 
—————— 

2 We  do  not  decide  today  that  the  Government’s  position  is  correct, 
but  assume  the  consequences  of  the  order  to  be  what  the  Government 
asserts. 

3 The regulation provides this consequence for “enforcement litigation
that  has  been  initiated  by  other  Federal  . . .  regulatory  agencies.”  33 
CFR  §326.3(e)(1)(iv)  (2011).    The  Government  acknowledges,  however,
that EPA’s issuance of a compliance order is considered by the Corps to 
fall  within  the  provision.  Brief  for  Respondents  31.    Here  again,  we
take the Government at its word without affirming that it represents a 
proper interpretation of the regulation.