Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2011 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

SACKETT ET VIR v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY ET AL. 

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

No. 10–1062.  Argued January 9, 2012—Decided March 21, 2012 

The  Clean  Water  Act  prohibits  “the  discharge  of  any  pollutant  by  any
person,” 33 U. S. C. §1311, without a permit, into “navigable waters,”
§1344.    Upon  determining  that  a  violation  has  occurred,  the  Envi-
ronmental  Protection  Agency  (EPA)  may  either  issue  a  compliance 
order or initiate a civil enforcement action.  §1319(a)(3).  The result-
ing  civil  penalty  may  not  “exceed  [$37,500]  per  day  for  each  viola-
tion.”  §1319(d).  The Government contends that the amount doubles 
to $75,000 when the EPA prevails against a person who has been is-
sued a compliance order but has failed to comply. 

The  Sacketts,  petitioners  here,  received  a  compliance  order  from 
the EPA, which stated  that  their residential lot contained navigable 
waters  and  that  their  construction  project  violated  the  Act.    The 
Sacketts  sought  declarative  and  injunctive  relief  in  the  Federal  Dis-
trict  Court,  contending  that  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 due process in viola-
tion  of  the  Fifth  Amendment.    The  District  Court  dismissed  the 
claims for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.  The Ninth Circuit af-
firmed,  concluding  that  the  Clean  Water  Act  precluded  pre-
enforcement  judicial  review  of  compliance  orders  and  that  such  pre-
clusion did not violate due process. 

Held: The Sacketts may bring a civil action under the APA to challenge

the issuance of the EPA’s order.  Pp. 4–10.

(a) The APA provides for judicial review of “final agency action for 
which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.”  5 U. S. C. §704.
The  compliance  order  here  has  all  the  hallmarks  of  APA  finality. 
Through  it,  the  EPA  “determined”  “rights  or  obligations,”  Bennett  v.