I did say it was a small victory. ;)

The ruling represents a restoration of right rather than a granting of new. The Sackett's property had been effectively seized by an unelected arm of the federal government. By submitting the compliance order threatening fines yet not actually filing the charges the EPA put the Sackett's in limbo where they were not charged with a violation so they could not seek redress in court and yet if they continued the work on their home the fines would continue to accumulate. This ruling removes the limbo state that the EPA (and numerous other agencies) use to force compliance without regard to due process.

>I fail to see where this gives the owner any more or less rights over what they can and can't do on their property.

>>A small but important victory for property rights has been won in the case of Sackett v. EPA.
>>
>>I may have mentioned this case in the past but cannot be certain. The gist is this. A couple bought a .63-acre plot of land back in 2005 for $23,000 on which they wanted to build a house. After getting all the proper permitting they began building and a couple days into the project the EPA issued compliance orders for them to stop construction or face fines of $30,000 a day. Those orders are not challengable in court. Thus the Sacketts were stymied. The only way to get their day in court was to violate the compliance order and trigger the fines. The Supreme Court has ruled that the compliance orders themselves are challengable.
>>
>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46809531
>>
>>Here is the opinion : http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf
>>
>>In addition, Justice Alito in his concurring opinion has tasked Congress to provide a reasonably clear rule re- garding the reach of the Clean Water Act.