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

Last updated

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 28, 1977
Decided April 3, 1978
Full case nameVermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Citations435 U.S. 519 ( more )
98 S. Ct. 1197; 55 L. Ed. 2d 460; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 21
Case history
PriorNatural 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
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens
Case opinion
MajorityRehnquist, 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]

Contents

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

Related Research Articles

Administrative law is a division of law governing the activities of executive branch agencies of government. Administrative law includes executive branch rule making, adjudication, and the enforcement of laws. Administrative law is considered a branch of public law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Natural Resources Defense Council</span> Non-profit international environmental advocacy group, with its headquarters in New York City

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is a United States-based 501(c)(3) non-profit international environmental advocacy group, with its headquarters in New York City and offices in Washington D.C., San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Bozeman, India, and Beijing. The group was founded in 1970 in opposition to a hydro-electric power power plant in New York.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States courts of appeals</span> Post-1891 U.S. appellate circuit courts

The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary. The courts of appeals are divided into 13 "Circuits". Eleven of the circuits are numbered "First" through "Eleventh" and cover geographic areas of the United States and hear appeals from the U.S. district courts within their borders. The District of Columbia Circuit covers only Washington, DC. The Federal Circuit hears appeals from federal courts across the United States in cases involving certain specialized areas of law. The courts of appeals also hear appeals from some administrative agency decisions and rulemaking, with by far the largest share of these cases heard by the D.C. Circuit. Appeals from decisions of the courts of appeals can be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant</span> Closed nuclear power plant in Vermont, US

Vermont Yankee was an electricity generating nuclear power plant, located in the town of Vernon, Vermont, in the northeastern United States. It generated 620 megawatts (MWe) of electricity at full power. The plant was a boiling water reactor (BWR), designed by General Electric. It operated from 1972 until December 29, 2014, when its owner Entergy shut down the plant. In 2008, the plant provided 71.8% of all electricity generated within Vermont, amounting to 35% of Vermont's electricity consumption. The plant is on the Connecticut River, upstream of the Vernon, Vermont Hydroelectric Dam and used the reservoir pool for its cooling water.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen F. Williams</span> American judge (1936–2020)

Stephen Fain Williams was a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit until his death from complications of COVID-19 on August 7, 2020.

In administrative law, rulemaking is the process that executive and independent agencies use to create, or promulgate, regulations. In general, legislatures first set broad policy mandates by passing statutes, then agencies create more detailed regulations through rulemaking.

United States federal administrative law encompasses statutes, regulations, rules, common law rulings, and directives issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Executive Office of the President, that together define the extent of powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of the United States government. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the U.S. federal government cannot always directly perform their constitutional responsibilities. Specialized powers are therefore delegated to an agency, board, or commission. These administrative governmental bodies oversee and monitor activities in complex areas, such as commercial aviation, medical device manufacturing, and securities markets.

In law, the standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court in reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal. A low standard of review means that the decision under review will be varied or overturned if the reviewing court considers there is any error at all in the lower court's decision. A high standard of review means that deference is accorded to the decision under review, so that it will not be disturbed just because the reviewing court might have decided the matter differently; it will be varied only if the higher court considers the decision to have obvious error. The standard of review may be set by statute or precedent. In the United States, "standard of review" also has a separate meaning concerning the level of deference the judiciary gives to Congress when ruling on the constitutionality of legislation.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test for when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. The decision articulated a doctrine known as "Chevron deference". Chevron deference consists of a two-part test that is deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."

The Administrative Law, Process and Procedure Project is a bipartisan undertaking of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress. It consists of a comprehensive study of the state of administrative law, process and procedure in the United States. A description of the Project was included in the Judiciary Committee's Oversight Plan for the 109th Congress, as approved by the Committee on January 26, 2005. The Project will culminate with the preparation of a detailed report with recommendations for legislative proposals and suggested areas for further research and analysis to be considered by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS). House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) and Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI) requested the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to assist Representative Chris Cannon (R-UT), the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law (CAL), in conducting the Project.

Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held agency decisions to not undertake enforcement proceedings is "committed to agency discretion by law" and therefore not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), is a United States Supreme Court case that concerns the standard that the Court should apply when it reviews an executive department's interpretation of regulations established under federal legislation. The specific issue was whether sergeants and lieutenants in the St. Louis Police Department should be paid for working overtime. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established the overtime pay requirement, and the US Department of Labor issued regulations to determine if an employee was covered by the overtime requirement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative Conference of the United States</span> Independent agency of the U.S. government

The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) is an independent agency of the United States government that was established in 1964 by the Administrative Conference Act. The conference's purpose is to "promote improvements in the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness of the procedures by which federal agencies conduct regulatory programs, administer grants and benefits, and perform related governmental functions."

John Garvan Murtha is an inactive Senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative Procedure Act</span> US federal statute allowing courts oversight over agencies

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law  79–404, 60 Stat. 237, enacted June 11, 1946, is the United States federal statute that governs the way in which administrative agencies of the federal government of the United States may propose and establish regulations, and it grants U.S. federal courts oversight over all agency actions. According to Hickman & Pierce, it is one of the most important pieces of United States administrative law, and serves as a sort of "constitution" for U.S. administrative law.

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court decision that held valid a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rule that during the licensing of nuclear power plants, the permanent storage of nuclear waste should be assumed to have no environmental impact.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 566 U.S. 120 (2012), also known as Sackett I, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court ruled that because the Environmental Protection Agency's orders constitute "final agency action" under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal courts may hear appeals from its orders.

Primary legislation and secondary legislation are two forms of law, created respectively by the legislative and executive branches of governments in representative democracies. Primary legislation generally consists of statutes, also known as 'acts', that set out broad principles and rules, but may delegate specific authority to an executive branch to make more specific laws under the aegis of the principal act. The executive branch can then issue secondary legislation, creating legally enforceable regulations and the procedures for implementing them.

Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204 (1988), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that agencies should not be presumed to have the power to promulgate retroactive rules unless that power is expressly authorized by Congress. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for a unanimous court that the Secretary of Health and Human Services had exceeded his rulemaking authority under the Medicare Act in promulgating a wage index rule in 1984 under which he would recoup Medicare reimbursements paid to hospitals, including Georgetown University Hospital, that had been disbursed since 1981 according to the pre-1984 rule. Justice Antonin Scalia concurred in the judgment, writing separately that, in addition to the particular language of the Medicare Act, the Administrative Procedure Act more broadly prohibits retroactive rulemaking because it defines rules as having exclusively future effect, as opposed to adjudicative orders.

References

  1. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978).
  2. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., 435 U.S. at 549.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 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.
  4. 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)
  5. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. , 462 U.S. 78 (1983).
  6. 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