| Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 28, 1977 Decided April 3, 1978 | |
| Full case name | Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. |
| Citations | 435 U.S. 519 (more) 98 S. Ct. 1197; 55 L. Ed. 2d 460; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 21 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 547 F.2d 633 (D.C. Cir. 1976); cert. granted, 429 U.S. 1090 (1977). |
| Holding | |
| While federal agencies are free to grant additional procedural rights in the exercise of their discretion, reviewing courts are generally not free to impose them if the agencies have not chosen to grant them. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by unanimous |
| Blackmun, Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| Administrative Procedure Act | |
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519 (1978), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a court cannot impose rulemaking procedures on a federal government agency. The federal Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 and an agency's statutory mandate from Congress establish the maximum requirements for an agency's rulemaking (and adjudicative) process.[1] An agency may grant additional procedural rights in the regulatory process (within constitutional and statutory limits). However, a reviewing court cannot "impose upon the agency its own notion of which procedures are 'best' or most likely to further some vague, undefined public good"; to do so would exceed the limits of judicial review of agency action.[2]
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/5Views:1 5591 7174 5426561 116
-
Vermont Yankee v. NRDC - Judicially Mandated Hearings in Informal Rulemaking
-
The Greatest Move on Earth
-
Michael Shellenberger - Why Environmentalists Will Save Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant
-
The Nuclear Power & Weapons Connection
-
NEPA, ESA and Fundamentals of Environmental Law (ELI Summer School, 2021)
Transcription
Background
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit became the preeminent administrative law court in the United States.[3] This was in large part due to the creation of new federal statutes such as the Clean Air Act that designated the D.C. Circuit as the center for challenges of regulations issued under said statutes.[3] The D.C. Circuit subsequently expanded administrative law jurisprudence significantly, particularly jurisprudence on informal rulemaking that enhanced judicial review of agency procedures.[3] Underlying most of this jurisprudence was a distrust of federal agencies that came to fruition during this time due to concerns about agency capture.[3]
Aftermath
In its decision, the Supreme Court "could not have made plainer its view that the D.C. Circuit had overstepped its proper role and illegitimately used its judicial review function to advance its judges' own policy preferences."[3] While the holding in Vermont Yankee was "certainly broad enough to suggest that courts should stick to the original understanding of the APA with respect to [the APA's requirements that agencies issue a notice of proposed rulemaking and a statement of basis and purpose]," courts have not applied it in that way.[4]
The case was remanded for the circuit court to determine whether the Table S-3 rule was adequately supported by the administrative record. After the Nuclear Regulatory Commission revised the rule, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed for judicial review of the new regulation. That led to a second Supreme Court case, Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc..[5]
Vermont Yankee signaled a change in administrative law jurisprudence towards legal formalism and textualism.[3] Despite the signaled change, the DC Circuit continued to read additional requirements into the APA for other steps in the rulemaking process. Professor Kenneth Davis wrote that "the Vermont Yankee opinion is largely one of those rare opinions in which the unanimous Supreme Court speaks with little or no authority."[6] While courts have continued to embrace hybrid rulemaking to some degree, the Vermont Yankee opinion did tip the scales back to formalism.
See also
References
- ^ Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978).
- ^ Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., 435 U.S. at 549.
- ^ a b c d e f Metzger, Gillian (January 1, 2005). "The Story of Vermont Yankee: A Cautionary Tale of Judicial Review and Nuclear Waste". Columbia Law School, Pub. Law Research Paper No. 05-92: 26.
- ^ Lawson, Gary (2019). Federal Administrative Law (8th ed.). St. Paul, MN. p. 403. ISBN 978-1-64020-149-1. OCLC 1061760117.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 78 (1983).
- ^ Lawson, Gary (2022). Federal Administrative Law (9th ed.). St. Paul, MN. p. 426. ISBN 978-1-64708-639-8.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Further reading
- Breyer, Stephen (1978). "Vermont Yankee and the Courts' Role in the Nuclear Energy Controversy". Harvard Law Review. 91 (8): 1833–1845. doi:10.2307/1340411. JSTOR 1340411.
- Scalia, Antonin (1978). "Vermont Yankee: The APA, the D.C. Circuit, and the Supreme Court". Supreme Court Review. 1978: 345–409. doi:10.1086/scr.1978.3109536. JSTOR 3109536. S2CID 141792209.
- Stewart, Richard B. (1978). "Vermont Yankee and the Evolution of Administrative Procedure". Harvard Law Review. 91 (8): 1805–1822. doi:10.2307/1340409. JSTOR 1340409.
External links
- Text of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio) Louisiana State University
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
This page was last edited on 21 February 2024, at 23:43