Facts
The facts in this case would turn the stomach of Franz Kafka.
Issue
The question for the Supreme Court in is whether the couple had the right at that point to appear before a judge and contest the agency’s contention that their land is subject to the Clean Water Act.
Rule
“For 75 years, the courts have interpreted statutes with an eye toward permitting judicial review, not the opposite,” said Justice Stephen G. Breyer. Transcript of Oral Argument, page 41, lines 8 – 10.
http://legalplanet.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/10-1062.pdfAnalysis
The government’s argument is essentially that the EPA can do anything they want.
Justice Kagan noted “that seems a very strange position.” Page 42, lines 1 – 2.
Conclusion
EPA’s extreme misbehavior and total disrespect for the judiciary is such that they are very likely to lose.
