Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

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

1 

ALITO, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 10–1062 
_________________ 

CHANTELL SACKETT, ET VIR, PETITIONERS v. ENVI- 
RONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[March 21, 2012]

 JUSTICE ALITO, concurring. 
The  position  taken  in  this  case  by  the  Federal  Govern-
ment—a  position  that  the  Court  now  squarely  rejects—
would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans 
entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) employees.

The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear.
Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in 
danger  of  being  classified  by  EPA  employees  as  wetlands 
covered  by  the  Act,  and  according  to  the  Federal  Govern-
ment,  if  property  owners  begin  to  construct  a  home  on  a
lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, 
the property owners are at the agency’s mercy.  The EPA 
may  issue  a  compliance  order  demanding  that  the  own-
ers  cease  construction,  engage  in  expensive  remedial 
measures,  and  abandon  any  use  of  the  property.    If  the 
owners do not do the EPA’s bidding, they may be fined up
to  $75,000  per  day  ($37,500  for  violating  the  Act  and
another $37,500 for violating the compliance order).  And 
if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot
does  not  include  covered  wetlands,  well,  as  a  practical 
matter,  that  is  just  too  bad.    Until  the  EPA  sues  them, 
they  are  blocked  from  access  to  the  courts,  and  the  EPA 
may  wait  as  long  as  it  wants  before  deciding  to  sue.    By
that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the