Private attorneys representing government entities are entitled to assert qualified immunity as a defense to civil rights claims, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Tuesday in Filarsky v. Delia.  The Court’s decision allows private attorneys to rely on the same protections that their public counterparts use.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument Monday on the hotly questioned issue of whether pharmaceutical sales representatives are subject to the outside sales exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  

Socrates said the obligation of judges is to “Hear courteously, Consider seriously, Decide Impartially.” And that appears to be what the United States Supreme Court is doing as it considers a series of related issues raised by numerous challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act including one predicated on the Anti-Injunction Act. The Court expanded the time for argument, offering the lawyers for the parties and several lawyers appointed to argue positions that neither party had advanced time to present their positions and answer questions for three days. In the course of those days of argument, the justices asked thoughtful questions probing the basis for each party’s position, the limits to their proposed rules of law, and the grounding for their position in statutory and constitutional law as well as the Court’s past precedent. Anyone watching the argument, or reading the transcript, or listening to the audio tapes would conclude that the issues presented are difficult and that the Court has listened courteously to all viewpoints and is considering seriously its decision. In fact, the process has been a tribute to the Court and seems to me likely to enhance the Court’s status as a revered American institution if the ultimate decision, and any dissent, is written in a manner that conveys impartiality. 

Socrates said the obligation of judges is to “Hear courteously, Consider seriously, Decide Impartially.” And that appears to be what the United States Supreme Court is doing as it considers a series of related issues raised by numerous challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act including one predicated on the Anti-Injunction Act. The Court expanded the time for argument, offering the lawyers for the parties and several lawyers appointed to argue positions that neither party had advanced time to present their positions and answer questions for three days. In the course of those days of argument, the justices asked thoughtful questions probing the basis for each party’s position, the limits to their proposed rules of law, and the grounding for their position in statutory and constitutional law as well as the Court’s past precedent. Anyone watching the argument, or reading the transcript, or listening to the audio tapes would conclude that the issues presented are difficult and that the Court has listened courteously to all viewpoints and is considering seriously its decision. In fact, the process has been a tribute to the Court and seems to me likely to enhance the Court’s status as a revered American institution if the ultimate decision, and any dissent, is written in a manner that conveys impartiality.

Television, radio, newspapers, and the blogosphere are filled with discussion – and the media seems a veritable school for the public about some complex issues.  Discussions focus on the connection between the individual mandate and the community-rating provision and the guaranteed-issue provision, federalism and state versus federal powers, the commerce clause, court-watching and speculation about the outcome of the decision, and presidential politics and the impact of any ruling on the election next fall. With so much prognostication going on about the outcome, I will keep my prediction to myself. But I will say that the parties were uniformly represented by capable and articulate advocates, and the Court focused on key points that it will need to consider in reaching its decision. I hope that when any decision – or set of decisions – issues, the justices will use care in their language to avoid any suggestion that disagreements are due to partisan differences, rather than differences in how the justices view the legal issues. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the federal government’s argument that compliance orders issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq. (the “CWA”), cannot be challenged in court.  In a unanimous opinion issued on March 21, 2012, the Court held that such orders constitute “final agency action” that can be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a) (the “APA”).  Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 566 U.S. ___, No. 10-1062 (Mar. 12, 2012).  In so doing, the Court has weakened one of the favored arrows in the EPA’s enforcement quiver. 

The case arose when Chantell and Mike Sackett bought two-thirds of an acre near Priest Lake, Idaho, intending to build their home there.  The vacant lot is zoned residential and is located in a platted subdivision, with sewer and water hookups.  The lot is separated from the lake by several lots where homes have already been built.  Sackett, slip op. at 3.  The Sacketts applied for and obtained the necessary building permits from the local authorities.  They began preparing the lot to build their home by filling in part of it with dirt and rock.  Id.  Not long after they did so, the EPA hit them with a compliance order. 

As the Court explained, the EPA’s compliance order contained a number of “Findings and Conclusions,” including: that the Sacketts’ property contains “wetlands”; that the property’s wetlands are adjacent to Priest Lake, a “navigable water” under the CWA; and that, by filling in about half an acre of the “wetlands” on their property, the Sacketts had discharged pollutants into waters of the United States in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).  Slip op. at 3-4.  The order required the Sacketts to return the property to its prior condition and to seek a wetlands permit – costs that, according to the Sacketts, would add up to tens of thousands of dollars, many times the $23,000 they paid for the property.  Failure to comply with the order could result in fines of up to $75,000 per day – $37,500 for the statutory violation and up to $37,500 for violating the compliance order.  Id. at 2.

The Sacketts tried to challenge the wetlands finding – both before the EPA and in federal court under the APA – but their challenges were rejected.  The district court in Idaho concluded that the CWA precludes judicial review of compliance orders before the EPA has started an enforcement action in federal court, and granted the EPA’s motion to dismiss.  Sackett v. EPA, No. 08-CV-185-N-EJL, 2008 WL 3286801 (D. Idaho Aug. 7, 2008).  The Ninth Circuit affirmed.  Sackett v. EPA, 622 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2010).  In other words, under the lower courts’ decisions, the only way in which the Sacketts could obtain judicial review of the compliance order would be to violate the order, wait for the EPA to sue them, and then raise their arguments in the enforcement action brought by the EPA, while potentially accruing up to $75,000 per day in civil penalties.

In his opinion for a unanimous Court, Justice Scalia set out to explain to the reader “what all the fuss is about.”  After describing the Sacketts’ situation and history – what Justice Scalia referred to as the “strong-arming of regulated parties” by government regulators – the Court held that the Sacketts were entitled to seek relief from the courts. 

The Court explained that the APA has a strong presumption in favor of allowing judicial review of final agency actions.  The Court rejected the EPA’s argument that the lack of an express provision allowing judicial review of administrative compliance orders in the CWA precluded such review, explaining:

[I]f the express provision of judicial review in one section of a long and complicated statute were alone enough to overcome the APA’s presumption of reviewability for all agency action, it would not be much of a presumption at all.

Slip op. at 8.

The Court held that the EPA’s compliance order against the Sacketts met all the requirements for APA judicial review.  First, the Court held that the compliance order was a “final agency action” because it imposed serious legal obligations on the Sacketts, including significant potential double penalties.  Even more importantly, the order represented the “‘consummation’ of the agency’s decisionmaking process” – because the terms of the compliance order were not subject to any further review, as the Sacketts discovered when they unsuccessfully sought a hearing before the EPA.  Slip op. at 5-6.  Second, the order clearly determined the Sacketts’ obligations by ordering them to restore their property to its prior condition.  Finally, the CWA does not expressly preclude review by the courts.  The Court therefore reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings.  Id. at 10. 

Justice Ginsburg and Justice Alito filed concurring opinions.  In her one-paragraph concurrence, Justice Ginsburg emphasized that the opinion does not address the question of whether the property owners “could challenge not only the EPA’s authority to regulate their land under the Clean Water Act, but also, at this pre-enforcement stage, the terms and conditions of the compliance order” – a question that is left for another case and another day.

Justice Alito, in contrast, issued a scathing rebuke of the EPA, the CWA, and Congress, stating that “[t]he position taken in this case by the Federal government – a position that the Court now squarely rejects – would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of [EPA] employees.”  Alito, J., concurring op. at 1.  While the Court’s opinion “provides a modest measure of relief” by allowing property owners to challenge the EPA’s jurisdictional determination under the APA, Justice Alito stated that “[r]eal relief requires Congress to do what it should have done in the first place: provide a reasonably clear rule regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act.”  Id. at 2.  Specifically, Judge Alito criticized the EPA’s and Congress’s failure to define what is meant by “the waters of the United States,” leaving this crucial jurisdictional determination to be made “on a case-by-case basis by EPA field staff.”  Id. 

The decision does not reach the merits of the Sacketts’ challenges to the compliance order, nor does it address the Sacketts’ due process argument.  Nonetheless, the decision is significant, and the stakes are high.  While the media has consistently portrayed this case as a battle between property owners as David against the EPA’s Goliath, the opinion also represents a victory for all property owners, including businesses and corporations.  Indeed, General Electric Co. had sought similar relief in a case last year, and filed an amicus brief in support of the Sacketts.  Moreover, the Court’s decision could impact not only CWA enforcement authority, but possibly could also impact review of compliance orders issued under other federal environmental statutes which, like the CWA, do not contain express prohibitions to judicial review.  And, for cases arising out of orders issued pursuant to statutes that do contain an express prohibition against judicial review, the Court may yet decide to go beyond the terms of the statute and the APA and address the due process argument it did not reach in the Sacketts’ case.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on February 28, 2012 in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., a case raising the controversial issue of corporate liability for alleged violations of international law.

Kiobel is a putative class action in which the plaintiffs, current and former residents of Nigeria, allege that three oil companies aided and abetted the Nigerian government in committing human rights violations in connection with oil exploration activities in Nigeria.  Plaintiffs invoked the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, as the jurisdictional basis for their U.S. lawsuit against foreign companies for alleged human rights abuses occurring in Africa.  The ATS, although passed by the first Congress in 1789, was first utilized in 1980 by an alien plaintiff seeking a civil remedy for alleged human rights abuses.  The ATS provides as follows: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”    

The Second Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims against corporations.  The court started with the uncontroversial proposition that the ATS is a jurisdictional statute and does not create any cause of action.  Citing an earlier Supreme Court ATS case, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), the Second Circuit stated that it must look to “customary international law to determine both whether certain conduct leads to ATS liability and whether the scope of liability under the ATS extends to the defendant being sued.”  After an extensive review of international law, the court could not identify a single instance in which a corporation had ever been subject to any form of liability under the customary international law of human rights.  Thus, the court concluded that imposing liability on corporations for violations of customary international law had not attained a “discernible”, much less the required “universal”, level of acceptance among the nations of the world in their relations with each other.  Therefore, the court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims against the oil companies and dismissed the complaint.       

The Supreme Court docket has been extremely active since plaintiffs’ petition was granted in October 2011.  In addition to denying defendant Shell’s conditional cross-petition for writ of certiorari, the Court has seen over 35 amici briefs filed in Kiobel, including a brief by the United States government in support of petitioners-plaintiffs and briefs by the governments of Germany, Great Britain, and the Netherlands in support of respondents. 

The outside interest generated by Kiobel underscores the important ramifications of the Court’s decision on corporate liability, both for U.S. companies with foreign operations, as well as foreign and multinational firms.  But the outcome of the case pivots on a relatively narrow slate of legal issues.  In their merits brief, the petitioners first take the position that the Second Circuit incorrectly characterized the issue of corporate civil liability as an issue of subject matter jurisdiction.  Petitioners go on to argue that under the ATS, analysis of customary international law is necessary to determine whether a particular act constitutes a violation of a substantive international law norm, but that domestic law (which undoubtedly recognizes corporate civil liability) supplies the remedy.  The respondents of course disagree, pointing to the above-quoted excerpt from Sosa as clearly establishing that international law must recognize corporate liability before ATS liability can be imposed. 

From the outset of petitioners’ oral argument, it was apparent that the Court was concerned about the notion of U.S. courts imposing civil liability on foreign companies for foreign conduct.   Counsel for petitioners, Paul Hoffman, uttered two sentences before Justice Kennedy interjected with two statements he challenged Mr. Hoffman to rebut: (1) “International law does not recognize corporate responsibility for the alleged offenses here,” and (2) “No other nation in the world permits its court to exercise universal civil jurisdiction over alleged extraterritorial human rights abuses to which the nation has no connection”.  Justice Alito followed in the same vein shortly thereafter with the observation that “there’s no particular connection between the events here and the United States,” which fed into his later questioning “what business” a case like this one has in the courts of the United States.   Justice Roberts appeared equally concerned about U.S. courts adjudicating the instant dispute, and he questioned whether the Kiobel suit itself contravened international law insofar as it could not have been brought in any other nation.

While the Court kept Mr. Hoffman occupied with the issue of the extraterritorial scope of the ATS, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler, arguing for the United States, was permitted to address several other arguments in support of petitioners’ position.  Nevertheless, the argument turned back toward broader policy issues, as Justice Kennedy posed a hypothetical to illustrate what he perceived to be the United States’ position:

Suppose an American corporation commits human trafficking with U.S. citizens in the United States. Under your view, the U.S. corporation could be sued in any country in the world, and it would -- and that would have no international consequences. We don't look to the international consequences at all. That's -- that's the view of the Government of the United States, as I understand.

Kathleen M. Sullivan, although peppered with wide-ranging questions from an active bench, was able to consistently return focus to respondents’ position that corporate liability was simply not recognized by customary international law.   Respondents’ argument was summarized succinctly by Ms. Sullivan toward the end of her oral argument:

[T]he ATS has language that says the tort must be committed in violation of the law of nations. So although, Justice Ginsburg, it doesn't specify who may be the defendants, it does point us to the law of nations to figure out what the law of nations thinks about who may be the defendants, and the law of nations is uniform. It rejects corporate liability. It rejects corporate liability.

Counsel for respondents finished her argument by clarifying that respondents did not seek a rule of “corporate impunity”, noting that corporate officers could be liable for human rights violations and that there were other avenues for suits redressing human rights violations, such as under state law or the domestic laws of nations.   

In rebuttal, Mr. Hoffman argued that “international law places no restriction on the way domestic jurisdictions enforce international law”.  However, despite his effort to focus the Court’s attention on domestic law as supplying the remedy for a violation of international law, he found himself answering the same line of questioning that began the argument – why should the courts of the United States entertain a “suit by an . . . alien against another alien for conduct that takes place overseas”?  This fundamental question emerged as perhaps the primary theme of the oral argument.  Whether the justices received a satisfactory answer will likely determine the outcome of the case. Keep an eye on the DRI Court Reporter for a summary of the Court’s decision when it is released.

The entire oral argument transcript can be downloaded from the Supreme Court website here.

Joshua D. Shaw practices law at Turner Padget Graham & Laney P.A. in Columbia, South Carolina.  

The Supreme Court of the United States will reconsider the issue of affirmative action in higher education for the first time since its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.  In Grutter the Court held that, “The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the [University of Michigan] Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”  Today, the Court agreed to hear the appeal of Abigail Fisher, a white student, who alleges she was denied admission to the University of Texas because of the color of her skin.  At issue in the Fisher case is whether the Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Grutter, permit the University of Texas at Austin’s use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions.

The Texas case will be argued in the fall and the changed makeup of the Supreme Court could foretell a different outcome.  Chiefly, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote the majority 5-4 decision, has been replaced by Justice Samuel Alito.  Further, Justice Elena Kagan has been recused from the case.  Her recusal is likely a result of the Justice Department’s participation in the case in the lower courts at the time when she served as solicitor general.

What impact, if any, will the changed makeup up of the Supreme Court have on its decision?  Is there a compelling interest in obtaining educational benefits from a diverse student body?  Could a reversal of the Court’s decision in Grutter result in resegregation in public colleges and universities?

The United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, answered this question in the affirmative.  The Court held, "The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the [University of Michigan] Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

On January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in the case of National Meat Association v. Harris, No. 10-224.  

On Monday, January 9, 2012, the Supreme Court heard argument in a case challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s issuance of administrative compliance orders under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq. (the “CWA”).  Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 10-1062. 

Chantell and Mike Sackett bought a vacant lot near Priest Lake, Idaho, intending to build their home there.  The lot is zoned residential and is located in a platted subdivision, with sewer and water hookups.  Surrounding lots already have homes built on them.  The Sacketts applied for and obtained the necessary building permits from the local authorities.  Once they began laying gravel, however, they were hit with a compliance order from the EPA.  The order declared the Sacketts’ property to be “wetlands,” and charged the Sacketts with discharging pollutants into the waters of the United States, absent a permit, in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).  In the order, the EPA required the Sacketts to return the property to its prior condition and to seek a wetlands permit – costs that, according to the Sacketts, would add up to tens of thousands of dollars, many times the $23,000 they paid for the property.  Failure to comply with the order could result in fines of up to $37,500 per day. 

The Sacketts tried to challenge the wetlands finding – both before the EPA and in federal court under the Administrative Procedure Act, but their challenges were rejected.  The district court in Idaho concluded that the CWA precludes judicial review of compliance orders before the EPA has started an enforcement action in federal court, and granted the EPA’s motion to dismiss.  Sackett v. EPA, No. 08-CV-185-N-EJL, 2008 WL 3286801 (D. Idaho Aug. 7, 2008).  The Ninth Circuit affirmed.  Sackett v. EPA, 622 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2010).  In other words, the only way in which the Sacketts could obtain judicial review of the order would be to violate the order and then raise their arguments in any enforcement action brought by the EPA. 

Arguing on behalf of the Sacketts, Damien Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation stated that his clients’ inability to seek relief from the courts when the EPA issues a compliance order under the CWA amounts to a denial of due process.  The majority of the justices seemed sympathetic with his argument.  Justice Stephen Breyer, for example, later commented that not allowing judicial review of administrative actions would represent a “huge upheaval” of federal practice, because “for 75 years the courts have interpreted statutes with an eye towards permitting judicial review, not the opposite.”  Justice Elena Kagan, however, suggested that the Sacketts had not exhausted all of their administrative remedies and could have obtained a wetlands permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.  Mr. Schiff disagreed, stating that having to go through the wetlands permit process before a second agency was not an adequate remedy. 

Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart argued for the EPA, and stuck to the EPA’s position that the Sacketts’ property is a wetland and that the CWA precludes any judicial review of compliance orders.  The Court did not appear to be persuaded.  In particular, Justice Anthony Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito sharply criticized the EPA’s argument.  Justice Alito remarked at one point that “most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States,” adding later that the EPA’s conduct is even more “outrageous” because it can change its mind at any time after issuing the compliance order.

The case is being closely watched by industry and public interest groups alike.  Fifteen different amicus briefs have been filed, fourteen of them in favor of the Sacketts – including briefs filed by the Chamber of Commerce, the State of Alaska and various trade and industry groups.  The media is describing the case as a fight between the “little guy” and big government.  We’ll find out if David or Goliath wins this fight when a decision is issued this spring.  The Court’s decision could impact not only CWA enforcement authority, but possibly also review of compliance orders issued under other federal environmental statutes. 

Carmen R. Toledo is a partner at King & Spalding in Atlanta, Georgia.