Blog Post 3.2 "Bureaucracy & Courts"

In 2007, Micheal and Chantell Sackett bought property in Idaho and began the process of building their house. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), sent them a letter telling the Sacketts they had violated the Clean Water Act by building on wetlands and not acquiring a permit. The Sacketts challegenged these claims and the case went to the Supreme Court.


Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court seems to rule in favor of the Sacketts. They say a hearing should be held in an earlier stage, when someone wants to challenge a compliance order and haven't been fined. The official ruling should be given at the end of June, when the Court recesses. 

1. The Sacketts

2. The EPA has ground to sue because it`s their property well it was their property from the start.

3. Order issued by the EPA

4. The plantiffs could be fined $75000 daily they could also lose the right to buy a house.

5. The EPA is trying to regulate or control where the Sacketts are trying to live.

6. The Court is expected to rule in favor of the Sacketts.

7. A bureaucracy is involved in the actual court case.

8. An Environmental Group and the could possibly bag the EPA up since they defend natural resources.

9. The compliance order is violating the Sacketts legal right to own a piece of property that they would like to have.

10. The Central Issue is the location of where the Sacketts are trying to build their house.

11. The Clean Water Act is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution.

12. The lawyer says the couple should have talked to the EPA before trying purchasing the land.

13. The bureaucracy requires them to follow rules they think they do not need to follow, or that they think they should be exempt from.