Commonwealth, Department of Environmental Protection v. Cromwell Township, 32 A.3d 639

Background

Township failed to implement its August 2000 Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan despite DEP orders.
Township amended the Plan in 2005–2006 to implement a ORJMA agreement but later repealed required ordinances.
DEP sought enforcement and contempt due to noncompliance; the Commonwealth Court sentenced three Supervisors to three-to-six months in prison in March 2009, later implemented in July 2009.
One supervisor resigned before sentencing; two others were imprisoned but later released or resigned; Township sought relief through direct appeal.
Appeal to Pennsylvania Supreme Court was treated as petition for allowance of appeal, with jurisdictional questions about whether the order was appealable as of right or by discretion; the Court ultimately granted relief and reversed the imprisonment sanctions against the individual supervisors, remanding for sanctions against the Township.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the July 8, 2009 order appealable as of right or by discretion?	Township argued for right of direct appeal under 42 Pa.C.S. § 723(a).	DEP contended enforcement appeals are discretionary under 42 Pa.C.S. § 724(a) and not by right.	Appeal properly treated as allowance of appeal; no right of direct appeal.
Whether sentencing the Township Supervisors to imprisonment violated constitutional protections or was improper given their roles	Township contends imprisonment of individual supervisors exceeded necessary/least restrictive remedy.	DEP asserts sanctions against individuals were appropriate to purge contempt.	Imprisonment of individual supervisors was improper; least restrictive sanctions should have been used first against Township.
Whether the Court should have used less intrusive means before incarcerating individuals	Township argues court failed to apply least restrictive measures before imprisonment.	DEP argues sanctions could include incarceration if lesser measures failed.	Court erred by not pursuing civil penalties against Township prior to incarcerating supervisors.
Whether the appeal is moot and, if so, whether there are exceptions that permit review	Township argues ongoing enforcement and potential future sanctions keep case alive.	DEP argues mootness but exceptions apply due to capable of repetition yet evading review and public interest.	Case not moot; merits addressed; imprisonment reversed and remand for sanctions against Township.

Key Cases Cited

Lansdowne Swim Club v. HRC, 515 Pa. 1, 526 A.2d 758 (Pa. 1987) (enforcement actions under HRC are appealable under §723(a) when commenced in Commonwealth Court)
Scranton School District v. HRC, 510 Pa. 247, 507 A.2d 369 (Pa. 1986) (enforcement actions generally not originally commenced in Commonwealth Court; discretionary review under §724(a))
Lindberg, 503 Pa. 423, 469 A.2d 1012 (Pa. 1983) (pendant/ancillary enforcement matters not originally commenced in Commonwealth Court; ultimately on discretionary review)
School District of Philadelphia v. HRC, 557 Pa. 126, 732 A.2d 578 (Pa. 1999) (enforcement proceedings not originally commenced in Commonwealth Court; discretionary review)
Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 110 S. Ct. 625 (U.S. 1990) (least-possible-power principle; city first before individuals in contempt sanctions)
Commonwealth v. Bowden, 576 Pa. 151, 838 A.2d 740 (Pa. 2003) (contempt and enforcement principles; inherent court power to enforce orders)
Beghian v. Beghian, 408 Pa. 408, 184 A.2d 270 (Pa. 1962) (inherent contempt power; civil sanctions)
Brocker v. Brocker, 429 Pa. 513, 241 A.2d 336 (Pa. 1968) (civil contempt; coercive sanctions authority of court)
Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1911) (historical basis for civil contempt sanctions)