Tull v. United States

Tull v. United States

Opinion

 [*414]  [***370]  [**1833]    JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

 The question for decision is whether the Seventh Amendment guaranteed petitioner a right to a jury trial on both liability and amount of penalty in an action instituted by the Federal Government seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief under the Clean Water Act, 62 Stat. 1155, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 et seq.

] The Clean Water Act prohibits discharging, without a permit, dredged or fill material into "navigable  [***371]  waters," including [****6]  the wetlands adjacent to the waters. 33 U. S. C. §§ 1311, 1344, and 1362(7); 33 CFR §§ 323.2(a)(1)-(7) (1986). "Wetlands" are "swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas." 33 CFR § 323.2(c) (1986). The Government sued petitioner, a real estate developer, for dumping fill on wetlands on the island of Chincoteague, Virginia. The Government alleged in the original complaint that petitioner dumped fill on three sites: Ocean Breeze Mobile Homes Sites, Mire Pond Properties, and Eel Creek. The Government later amended the complaint to allege that petitioner also placed fill in a  [**1834]  manmade waterway, named Fowling Gut Extended, on the Ocean Breeze property. ²

 [****7]  Section 1319 ] enumerates the remedies available under the Clean Water Act. Subsection (b) authorizes relief in the form of temporary or permanent injunctions. Subsection (d) provides that violators of certain sections of the Act "shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $ 10,000 per day" during the period of the violation. The Government sought in  [*415]  this case both injunctive relief and civil penalties. When the complaint was filed, however, almost all of the property at issue had been sold by petitioner to third parties. Injunctive relief was therefore impractical except with regard to a small portion of the land. ³ App. 110, 119. The Government's complaint demanded the imposition of the maximum civil penalty of $ 22,890,000 under subsection (d). App. 31-34.

 [****8]  Petitioner's timely demand for a trial by jury was denied by the District Court. During the 15-day bench trial, petitioner did not dispute that he had placed fill at the locations alleged and did not deny his failure to obtain a permit. Petitioner contended, however, that the property in question did not constitute "wetlands." 615 F.Supp. 610, 615-618 (ED Va. 1983). The Government concedes that triable issues of fact were presented by disputes between experts involving the composition and nature of the fillings. Tr. of Oral Arg. 44.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.