Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

SACKETT v. EPA 

Syllabus 

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 “consumma-
tion” 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.  Pp. 4–6.

(b) 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  ar-
guments do not support an inference that the Clean Water Act’s stat-
utory scheme precludes APA review.  Pp. 7–10. 

622 F. 3d 1139, reversed and remanded. 

SCALIA, J.,  delivered  the  opinion  for  a  unanimous  Court.    GINSBURG, 

J., and ALITO, J., filed concurring opinions.