Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
Supreme Court of the United States
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council
Reference: 435 US 519
Term: 1977
Important Dates
Argued: Nov 28, 1977
Decided: Apr 3, 1978
Outcome
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed
Majority
William Rehnquist • Chief Justice Warren Burger • Potter Stewart • William Brennan • Thurgood Marshall • John Paul Stevens • Byron White

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. is a 1978 case involving the ability of courts to impose additional procedural requirements on government agencies beyond what the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) required. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that the court had exceeded its authority under the APA.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned two licenses granted by the Atomic Energy Commission for the construction and operation of nuclear power plants.
  • The issue: Did the Atomic Energy Commission conform to the guidelines set by the Administrative Procedure Act, and did the Appeals Court exceed its own authority under the act?
  • The outcome: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Appeals Court had "improperly intruded into the agency's decision-making process."


    • In brief: The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned two permits granted by the Atomic Energy Commission for the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. The Appeals Court claimed new and updated rules had rendered the original reviews for these permits insufficient. The Supreme Court then reversed this ruling, holding that the Appeals Court had overstepped its authority under the Administrative Procedure Act by trying to impose additional procedural requirements on the Atomic Energy Commission.[2]

    Why it matters: The Supreme Court set a clear and definitive precedent that courts could not impose additional procedural requirements on agencies, they could only evaluate existing procedures. Furthermore, judicial review could only concern itself with the agency's success or failure to conform to the established procedures, it could not invalidate an action simply because the court was "unhappy with the result reached."[2]

    Background

    Administrative State
    Administrative State Icon Gold.png
    Five Pillars of the Administrative State
    • Judicial deference
    • Nondelegation
    • Executive control
    • Procedural rights
    • Agency dynamics
    Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia

    The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) granted a license to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation to operate a nuclear power plant. Several groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, had opposed the licenses and continued to mount legal challenges. Following the granting of the licenses, the AEC formulated a new fuel cycle rule related to the environmental impacts of nuclear fuel reprocessing, but held that the new rule did not apply to Vermont Yankee's license, which had been granted before its effective date. According to the Supreme Court's investigation, the DC Court of Appeals then "ruled that in the absence of effective rulemaking proceedings, the AEC must deal with the environmental impact of fuel reprocessing and disposal in individual licensing proceedings."[2] The Appeals Court then overturned both the rule and the license granted to Vermont Yankee.[2]

    The AEC had also granted a license to Consumers Power Company to construct two new plants, which had also met with third-party challenges. Soon after the approval, the Council on Environmental Quality revised its guidelines for environmental impact statements (EIS) "to mention for the first time the necessity for considering energy conservation as one of the alternatives to a proposed project." One of the third-party challengers moved to reopen the permit proceedings, but the AEC declined. The Court of Appeals then ruled that the original EIS was invalid and the approving report by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards was inadequate and overturned the license. The case then appeared before the United States Supreme Court. The Vermont Yankee and Consumers Power cases were tried together. [2]

    Oral argument

    Oral arguments were held on Nov 28, 1977. The case was decided on Apr 3, 1978.[1]

    Decision

    The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and ruled unanimously in favor of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation.[1]

    Opinions

    Opinion of the court

    Writing for the court, Justice William Rehnquist characterized the D.C. Appeals Court's actions as "an unjustifiable intrusion into the administrative process." He described what he argued was the Court's misinterpretation of the relevant statutory and decisional law.

    “ The Court of Appeals in these cases has seriously misread or misapplied such statutory and decisional law cautioning reviewing courts against engrafting their own notions of proper procedures upon agencies entrusted with substantive functions by Congress, and moreover as to the Court of Appeals' decision with respect to agency action taken after full adjudicatory hearings, it improperly intruded into the agency's decision-making process.[2][3] ”


    Contrary to the lower court's finding, Rehnquist argued that the "AEC acted well within its statutory authority." The Supreme Court remanded the decision regarding Vermont Yankee's license to the Appeals Court to review again, within the bounds of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Supreme Court also found the revocation of Consumers Power's license to be unjustified and reversed it.[2]

    Concurring opinions

    There were no concurring opinions.

    Dissenting opinions

    There were no dissenting opinions.

    Impact

    The concluding notes of the discussion of the Consumers Power license offered guidance concerning the role of lower courts in reviewing agency actions.

    “ All this leads us to make one further observation of some relevance to this case. To say that the Court of Appeals' final reason for remanding is insubstantial at best is a gross understatement. Consumers Power first applied in 1969 for a construction permit - not even an operating license, just a construction permit. The proposed plant underwent an incredibly extensive review. The reports filed and reviewed literally fill books. The proceedings took years, and the actual hearings themselves over two weeks. To then nullify that effort seven years later because one report refers to other problems, which problems admittedly have been discussed at length in other reports available to the public, borders on the Kafkaesque.[2] [3] ”


    Regarding the National Environmental Protection Act, which the Appeals Court had cited in its reasoning, the decision had this to say:

    “ NEPA does set forth significant substantive goals for the Nation, but its mandate to the agencies is essentially procedural. See 42 U.S.C. 4332. See also Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. SCRAP, 422 U.S., at 319 . It is to insure a fully informed and well-considered decision, not necessarily a decision the judges of the Court of Appeals or of this Court would have reached had they been members of the decisionmaking unit of the agency. Administrative decisions should be set aside in this context, as in every other, only for substantial procedural or substantive reasons as mandated by statute, Consolo v. FMC, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966), not simply because the court is unhappy with the result reached. And a single alleged oversight on a peripheral issue, urged by parties who never fully cooperated or indeed raised the issue below, must not be made the basis for overturning a decision properly made after an otherwise exhaustive proceeding.[2][3] ”


    Professor Alfred S. Neely IV of the University of Missouri-Columbia described the ruling as a new "paradigm for judicial review," but pointed out several ways lower courts could evade its new guidelines.

    “ First, lower courts can sidestep Vermont Yankee in three ways: by use of their power to substantively review the rulemaking record, by refusing to accept agencies' characterization of some rules as exempt from the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, and by developing the "constitutional constraints or extremely compelling circumstances" exception which the Court explicitly created in Vermont Yankee.[4] [3] ”

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Oyez, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., accessed August 9, 2018
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 FindLaw, VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. v. NRDC, accessed November 12, 2017
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    4. ↑ University of Baltimore Law Review, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.: Response and Reaction in the Federal Judiciary, accessed November 12, 2017
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Corp._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council&oldid=8904050"