The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been given a mandate by the Congress, through legislation, to protect the environment for the people of the United States. The parent act establishing the agency gives it the power to make delegated legislation that would be essential in helping the agency carry out its obligations efficiently. Drafters of the Constitution, in their wisdom, saw it fit to advice Congress, and indeed encourage it, through provisions of the Constitution to establish agencies with regulatory power to carry out specific functions. Indeed, Congress cannot be heard to legislate on everything because it will be overwhelmed by work. Therefore, the establishment of the EPA by Congress was a Constitutional process. EPA is supposed to be equipped in terms of capacity, skills, knowledge and expertise in regards to environmental protection. Thus, they are better suited to draft delegated legislation because they are more informed about the environment than Congress. Having established that EPA is a Constitutional body, with regulatory power over the environment, this paper will then discuss whether it would be in order to arrest and fine or/and jail Sykwalker.
EPA is an enforcement agency. This implies that it has been given powers to enforce its mandate by law. EPA agents have the power and authority to get into Sykwalker’s store. They have the power to arrest him for contravening the law and confiscating any necessary evidence needed for the trial process. In exercising its mandate to protect the environment for the people of the United States, EPA has the power to prosecute Sykwalker or fine him for contravening express provisions of the law. On Sykwalker’s part, ignorance of the law is not a defence. Therefore, Sykwalker cannot allege that he was not aware of the law banning the sale of glass-top coffee tables. More fundamentally, EPA had compiled with the procedural requirements to give notice of the law and publish its provisions in detail in order to warn all people involved in the trade. As long as EPA did not intend to apply the provisions of the enacted legislation retrospectively, they had the power to arrest, fine or/and jail Sykwalker for engaging in an illegal trade. The management of the EPA has the discretion in the sentencing. They have three options, that is, impose a fine, a prison sentence, or both. One can appeal the sentence through the process set out in the parent legislation or even to the court of law. However, courts will not substitute the agency’s discretion with their own. What the court does in regards to the sentence is to determine whether it was done within the confines of the law. EPA can decide to jail Sykwalker because of several reasons. One of them is deterrence. They can elect to imprison him in order to send a message that they mean business and anyone who contravenes the law will be met with the full force of the law. They may also want to deter Sykwalker from attempting to make, sell and distribute top-glass coffee tables again as long as they remain an unlawful activity. The other reason for deciding to imprison him may be informed by the fact that fining him may not have any significant impact at all in comparison to the offence committed. It is a vital concept of the law that the punishment must always be commensurate with the crime committed.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All other laws and regulations must conform to the Constitution. If they are not, they are declared null and void to the extent of that inconsistency. This has been a long standing principle of the law since the Supreme Court decided the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Furthermore, Sykwalker, just like everyone else, has a Constitutional right to fair administrative action and a right to a fair hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction. Sykwalker can indeed sue the EPA and challenge the Constitutionality of the delegated legislation enforced by EPA. To begin with, the primary mandate of the EPA is to protect the environment for the people of the United States. They must do this within their Constitutional mandate, using due process, without being ultra vires and without infringing on rights and liberties of citizens. More significantly, there is a cardinal need for them to observe procedural fairness. Procedure is the handmaiden of substance. Procedural impropriety will lead to an injustice. One of the significant hallmarks of procedural fairness is the need for administrative agencies to give reasons for their actions. From the case study; it is clear that EPA had not conducted an environmental assessment test to determine risks posed to the environment by the use of all glass-top coffee tables. In addition, they did not provide any findings or research indicating the danger posed to coffee drinkers using glass-top coffee tables. There are also no cases, complaints or comments from members of the public complaining about these coffee tables. The EPA has not provided any reasons or grounds for banning these coffee tables. It is, therefore, in order to argue that their actions and the law they purport to enforce is unconstitutional, not only for failing to meet the threshold of procedural fairness, but also for infringing on the constitutional rights of people to conduct their trade freely. Indeed, this forms a good cause to petition the President for the removal of the director of EPA for acting arbitrary and breaking the law. Sykwalker can sue the director and EPA for damages caused by their disruption of his business, the losses incurred and damage caused to the reputation of his business.
There are a number of judicial review orders that Sykwalker can pray to the courts. These include the order of certiorari, an order for an injunction and damages. The order of certiorari seeks to quash the unconstitutional provisions of the delegated legislations enforced by EPA and their order to ban the sale of all glass-top coffee tables. The order for an injunction is instrumental to order the agency to stop interfering with the lawful enterprise of Sykwalker unless they have another lawful cause to do so. An order for an injunction will prevent agents of the agency from enforcing the provisions of the said law until the matter is brought to conclusion. The prayer for damages is also fundamental. Sykwalker has suffered a lot of damage since the law was enforced. He was fined by EPA, his trade was halted and his reputation tarnished. The grant of damages is intended to put him in a position that he would have been had the incident not occurred.
Everyone is entitled to a defence, and EPA is not an exception. A court of law will provide each party with ample time to prosecute their case. In prosecuting their case, EPA will argue that they were simply carrying out their statutory mandate; to protect the environment for the people of the United States. Congress has a constitutional right to establish any regulatory body empowered with the requisite powers to carry out specific obligations. In doing so, Congress simply needs to pass the parent act with skeletal directions about the mandate of the body. It has been established that Congress was acting constitutionally in establishing EPA. Furthermore, it is in the interest of all Americans that we have a constitutional body in charge of protection the environment. The scope of the body is established by Congress, while the body is supposed to use its expertise to draft delegated legislations to ensure that its carries out its mandate. As long as these delegated legislations are not ultra vires and comply with the Constitution and the parent legislation, then they are legitimate and enforceable. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, courts cannot and should not interfere with the working of the executive unless they act unconstitutionally.
Having established that EPA is a Constitutional body, it is also vital to establish whether they conducted their business within the law by observing the requirements of due process. Due process requires that a notice be given before the implementation of an administrative decision and an avenue for complaints or appeal be made available. It is a fact from the case study that as a matter of practice, EPA used its website to publish and publicize the provision of the law banning the sale of all glass-top coffee tables. Indeed, the agency gave the trader more than two weeks to cut their losses and wind up their illegal trade. Plaintiffs cannot, therefore, be heard to say that they were caught off-guard. It is their duty to know and observe the law. As stated above ignorance of the law is no defence. More fundamentally, the plaintiff is involved in the said industry thus he is supposed to stay abreast with emerging legislation to streamline the sector. Sykwalker had the chance to fill his complaints to the EPA through their grievance department. His case would have been determined on merit and a decision entered. His failure to follow due process should not be an excused.
Additionally, the interpretation of the parent legislation establishing EPA is the mandate of the agency. The agency interpreted its mandate, to protect the environment for the people of the United States, to entail keeping the environment safe at all cost. The procedure and measures used to enforce this law is a preserve of the agency and not any other body or organ. Therefore, EPA was not acting ultra vires when it banned the sale of these coffee tables. The people of the United States have an expectation that the agency would act swiftly and objectively to save the environment immediately it detected any danger. Therefore, the agency was in order when it gave more than two weeks’ notice for the traders to abandon their trade. It would be failing in its mandate if allows the trade to continue even after they had realized and identified a threat to the environment.
References
Keane, A. (2008). The Modern Law of Evidence. London: Oxford University Press.
Abiad, N., & Mansoor, F. Z. (2010). Criminal Law and the Rights of the Child in Muslim States: A Comparative and Analytical Perspective. Houston: BIICL.
Barth, S. C. (2008). Hospitality Law: Managing Legal Issues in the Hospitality Industry. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Dalglish, L. A. (2007). State Open Government Law and Practice. New York: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company.
Del Carmen, R. V. (2012). Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice, 9th ed. Dallas: Cengage Learning.
Miller, R. L. (2011). Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law: Excerpted Cases, 3rd ed.: Excerpted Cases. New York: Cengage Learning.
Nemeth, C. P. (2011). Law and Evidence. New York: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Partridge, M. V. (2009). Alternative dispute resolution: an essential competency for lawyers. New York: Oxford University Press.
