## Facts

- Michael and Chantell Sackett bought a residential lot near Priest Lake, Idaho, and began placing dirt and rock fill to prepare for home construction.
- The Environmental Protection Agency issued an administrative compliance order under the Clean Water Act (CWA), asserting the lot contained jurisdictional wetlands and the Sacketts had discharged fill without a permit.
- The order required restoration and warned of substantial daily civil penalties for noncompliance, including potentially increased penalties if EPA later prevailed in enforcement.
- The Sacketts sought an agency hearing; EPA denied the request.
- The Sacketts sued in federal district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and raised constitutional claims.
- The district court dismissed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the CWA implicitly precluded pre-enforcement judicial review of compliance orders.
- The Supreme Court granted review limited to whether the order was reviewable under the APA and whether the CWA precluded review.

## Issues

1. Whether an EPA CWA compliance order constitutes “final agency action” reviewable under APA § 704.
2. Whether the CWA precludes pre-enforcement judicial review of such compliance orders.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed.
- The Court held the compliance order was “final agency action” because it determined legal obligations and carried legal consequences, including exposure to enhanced penalties and effects on permitting.
- The Court held there was no other adequate remedy in court because requiring recipients to await an enforcement action would deny timely review despite significant coercive consequences.
- The Court rejected the view that the CWA implicitly precluded APA review, applying the presumption favoring judicial review of agency action.
- Having resolved the case on statutory grounds, the Court did not issue a separate due process holding, though it noted the practical pressure created by threatened penalties.

## Legal Principles

- An administrative compliance order is reviewable under APA § 704 when it marks the consummation of agency decisionmaking and has legal consequences that affect rights or obligations.
- The availability of later agency enforcement does not necessarily provide an “adequate remedy” that defeats APA review when the challenged agency action itself imposes significant legal and practical consequences.
- Statutes are not read to bar APA review absent a clear indication of congressional intent; implied preclusion is disfavored where the APA otherwise authorizes review.

## Conclusion

The Court held that recipients of EPA compliance orders under the Clean Water Act may obtain immediate judicial review under the APA because such orders are final agency action and the Act does not bar pre-enforcement review.


Sackett v. EPA, 566 U.S. 120 (2012)