Big SCOTUS case ... Updated!

.
... today:

But the arguments are scheduled to be heard Monday before the U.S. Supreme Court, where Damien Schiff, of the Pacific Legal Foundation, will be arguing that the EPA must be subject to the rule of law and the agency cannot simply issue orders violating others’ property rights without giving the owner his or her day in court to argue that the agency is wrong.

This is the case of an Idaho couple who bought property in a subdivision (amongst other houses) and were told by the EPA that they had to un-do the foundation work and restore the land because it was a 'wetland'.

The big issue is that the EPA decisions are not subject to court review, and that's a big deal. I'll be watching the SCOTUS blog to check for a transcript.

Upedate: From SCOTUSblog:

Perhaps the most telling aspect of this case, as it goes to oral argument, is that the Court reached out to take it despite the complete unanimity in the lower courts on the absence of court review of the EPA’s compliance orders before they actually are enforced, under the various laws that the agency enforces. It is quite rare for the Court to step in under those circumstances, and the temptation is strong to conclude that the Court has granted review in order to reverse.

Updated! - Transcript here
pm