We achieved a significant legal win for property owners in our case United States v. Ace Black Ranches, where we are defending Ace Black Ranches, a family-owned ranching operation, from allegations that it disturbed wetlands and must spend millions of dollars to restore those wetlands.
Last week, the Court in Idaho delivered a blow to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) overreach in regulating the so-called “adjacent wetlands.” We argued that the federal regulators have not even made sufficient accusations to show that they have any right to regulate those so-called wetlands. And on August 29, 2024, the court granted our motion to dismiss the EPA’s claims.
This decision comes on the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, which significantly curtailed the EPA’s authority to regulate wetlands that are not obviously connected to “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). Under the Sackett ruling, federal agencies like the EPA and the Corps can no longer make jurisdictional claims over adjacent wetlands without explaining how they have authority to police actions in those so-called “wetlands” in the first place. For decades, these agencies have wielded the vague “significant nexus” test and the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) severe penalties—including hefty fines and potential jail time—as a sledgehammer to enforce their expansive view of regulatory power. But they cannot do that anymore, as this win in Ace Black Ranches shows.
In the ABR case, the government alleged that certain areas of the ranch qualified as adjacent wetlands under the CWA, thereby falling under federal jurisdiction. However, the Court in Idaho found that the government did not plead specific facts to support its claims. As a result, the court dismissed the claims, although it is giving the EPA a chance to amend its complaint.
This dismissal sets a precedent that could reshape how the federal government approaches regulatory enforcement under the CWA. In cases like ABR’s, property owners often face daunting battles against the federal government, which not only asserts broad regulatory claims but also brings in costly consultants, potentially driving the costs for landowners into the hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. By demanding more precise allegations from federal agencies, the Court has reinforced the principle that the federal regulators must explain why they have the right to police private actions on private property in the first place, rather than trying to strongarm property owners when they have no actual authority to do that.
The court’s decision serves as a stern reminder to the EPA and the Corps: if they wish to regulate activities on private property, they must provide more than broad, conclusory claims and threats against the property owners. For property owners across the country, this is important. And we hope that it means fewer arbitrary regulatory claims and a more level playing field in disputes with powerful federal regulators.
The Road Ahead: What’s Next for the EPA?
Maybe the EPA can amend its lawsuit to clarify its allegations about what the EPA supposedly can tell ABR to do or not do at the ranch. Both ABR and the Court invited the EPA to do that if it can. But that invitation highlights the importance of this decision. First and for this case, the Court’s decision has created a significant speedbump for the EPA’s case against ABR. Second and in the bigger picture, it is a huge step in preventing the EPA and the Corps from strongarming property owners with threats when those agencies don’t actually have legal authority to do anything. The court has made it clear that it will not entertain vague claims of jurisdiction; the EPA must do more than just make baseless, conclusory allegations. This requirement could prove to be a tall order for federal regulators in many future disputes.
For those who believe in limited government and the protection of private property rights, this is a cause for celebration! This ruling sends a powerful message that bureaucratic bullying will not be tolerated. As property owners, legal scholars, and advocacy groups continue to digest this landmark decision, one thing is clear: MSLF’s battle for property rights is far from over, but this victory is a significant step in the right direction.
