The current discussion is a response to the prompt: “if it is constitutional for a lien to be placed on a piece of property, without providing an avenue for hearing in a court of law, or even in an administrative setting.” In answering the prompt, the case of the Reardons applies. The Reardons had purchased the property of 16 acres near a manufacturing plant, which were cleaned initially by the EPA, then the Reardons themselves, but on the third time, the EPA placed a lien on the Reardons.

The answer provided here argues that the power to place a lien on the property without prior notification to the owner is very constitutional. According to Kubasek, Brenman and Browne (2012), and clark (1993), the CERCLA provides the EPA of the United States with three options, in a case where the agency has established that a response action is required. The agency can go on and issue an administrative order for clean up. Additionally, the agency can file an action in order to compel a cleanup. Further, the agency can do the clean up using the ‘Superfund’ money and, thereafter, seek reimbursement from the party that if regarded responsible for the mess.

In regard to the constitutional powers conveyed to the EPA, and the case of the Reardons, the lien placed on Reardons was valid, since it was an act of “enforcement” (Clark, 1993). Additionally, the EPA had done the clean-up for the fist time. Considering this fact, and the fact that it is mandated by law to place liens without notices, the EPA was justified to place the lien to the Reardons.

References

Clark, K. C. (1993). Due process and environmental lien: the need for legislative reform, 20 BC. Vol. 2. Retrieved from http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1423&context=ealr

Kubasek, N. K., Brenman, A. B., & Browne, N. M. (2012). The legal environment of business: a critical thinking approach, sixth edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.