Supreme Court Rules Against EPA

The Supreme Court ruled against the EPA in a case involving an Idaho couple trying to build a house on their land. The short version of the story (long version here) is that they had permits from the county to build the house. A county owned ditch was clogged with trees and backing water up on their property. They got permission from the county to clear the ditch and the water went away. The EPA prosecuted the husband in criminal court for destroying a wetland and he was found not guilty by a jury. After the EPA lost in criminal court, they came after him civilly with a threat of fines if he didn't restore the land to its state prior to him clearing the blockage caused by the county. The family tried to get a hearing with the EPA but were told that individuals could not appeal compliance orders. They were also told they couldn't file a lawsuit until the EPA tried to enforce the compliance order and the fines would continue to grow. Once the enforcement order was filed, they could sue. The fines could have been in the millions by then. The suit they won was basically about having the right to sue the EPA about whether the land was actually a wetland. They could still lose that lawsuit.

This case is incomprehensible to me. How can a government agency force its will on the people this way? Their original case makes no sense by itself. But to then follow that up by not giving the people a chance to resolve the situation without incurring untold thousands or more in fines is nothing but regulatory tyranny. The countless laws passed by Congress are multiplied and magnified by the regulations imposed by the federal bureaucracy. People governed by this many laws and regulations are no longer free even if they think they are.