Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf
Page Number: 13

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

1 

GINSBURG, 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 GINSBURG, concurring. 
Faced  with  an  EPA  administrative  compliance  order 
threatening  tens  of  thousands  of  dollars  in  civil  penalties 
per  day,  the  Sacketts  sued  “to  contest  the  jurisdictional
bases for the order.”  Brief for Petitioners 9.  “As a logical
prerequisite  to  the  issuance  of  the  challenged  compliance 
order,” the Sacketts contend, “EPA had to determine that 
it  has  regulatory  authority  over  [our]  property.”    Id.,  at 
54–55.  The Court holds that the Sacketts may immediate-
ly litigate their jurisdictional challenge in federal court.  I 
agree,  for  the  Agency  has  ruled  definitively  on  that  ques-
tion.  Whether  the  Sacketts  could  challenge  not  only  the 
EPA’s  authority  to  regulate  their  land  under  the  Clean 
Water  Act,  but  also,  at  this  pre-enforcement  stage,  the 
terms and conditions of the compliance order, is a question
today’s  opinion  does  not  reach  out  to  resolve.    Not  raised 
by  the  Sacketts  here,  the  question  remains  open  for  an-
other  day  and  case.    On  that  understanding,  I  join  the 
Court’s opinion.