LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - Idaho couple Chantell and Michael Sackett challenged a 2007 EPA order that required them to restore a wetland they had filled with dirt and rock when they began to build a new vacation home. In addition, the Sacketts were told to stop construction on the home.

The Sacketts denied their property had ever contained a wetland and claimed they were being forced to comply with an order without the benefit of a court hearing.

Their appeal was supported by the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Home Builders and General Electric Company, which also had made a similar challenge to the EPA compliance orders.

The ruling comes when the EPA faces mounting criticism from many Republicans in Congress who say it has issued the most ambitious clean air regulations in decades and has become heavy-handed in enforcement actions.

IN response, the justices unanimously rejected the government's position that individuals or companies must first fail to comply with an EPA order and face potentially costly enforcement action before a court can review the case.

Justice Antonin Scalia concluded the Sacketts may bring a civil lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act to challenge the EPA's order, saying that since the EPA's decision was final and the couple faced potential large fines, they had no other adequate remedy but to bring a civil lawsuit.

Scalia said that the Clean Water Act does not prevent judicial review of such orders. Under the law, violations of the Clean Water Act can result in fines of up to $37,500 per day, in addition to $37,500 per day for violating the EPA compliance order.

Scalia said the Clean Water Act was not "uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into 'voluntary compliance' without the opportunity for judicial review."

The justices overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that a compliance order was not subject to judicial review until later when the EPA has brought an enforcement action and seeks to have a judge rule in its favor.

Undeterred, Senior Attorney in the water program at the Natural Resources Defense Council Jon Devine said the EPA still can issue compliance orders.

"The Supreme Court did not give anyone a license to pollute. Pure and simple. Those who pollute our waters will still be held accountable," he said. The ruling "grants recipients of such orders, at a time of their choosing, a day in court to challenge them to promote speedy resolution of pollution problems."

© 2012, Catholic Online. Distributed by NEWS CONSORTIUM.