holding that plain error requires reversal if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings” (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- holding that plain error requires reversal if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings” (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted)
- holding that agency action at issue satisfied Bennett prong-two because, under the relevant statutes and regulations, it appeared to expose petitioners to double penalties in a future enforcement proceeding and to limit their ability to obtain a certain type of permit
- stating that legal consequences flowed from an agency order in part because it required the plaintiffs to restore their property according to an EPA-approved work plan and give the EPA access to the property and to various records
- finding that there was "no other adequate remedy in a court” because plaintiffs did not have alternative routes to "judicial review,” specifically they could not initiate a civil action in court under the Clean Water Act
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by M.L. Johnson Family Properties, LLC v. Jewell, 237 F. Supp. 3d 528 (2017)
One might respond in two ways: First, that Sackett is distinguishable.
Distinguished by Nimmrich & Prahm Reederei Gmbh & Co. KG MS Sonja v. United States, 925 F. Supp. 2d 850 (2012)
Sackett, however, is distinguishable.
The opinion
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 immediately litigate their jurisdictional challenge in federal court. I agree, for the Agency has ruled definitively on that question. Whether the Sacketts could challenge not only the EPA’s authority to regulate their land under the Clean Water Act, but also, at this preenforcement 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 another day and case. On that understanding, I join the Court’s opinion.