Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion

Supreme Court of United States
470 U.S. 729 (1985)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Federal courts of appeals have exclusive initial subject-matter jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 2239 to review final orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) denying citizen petitions to institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, regardless of whether a formal hearing was held.

Facts:

Joette Lorion, on behalf of the Center for Nuclear Responsibility, lived near the Turkey Point nuclear reactor operated by Florida Power and Light Company.
On September 11, 1981, Lorion wrote a detailed letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expressing fears about potential safety threats at the reactor.
The letter urged the NRC to suspend Turkey Point's operating license and specified several safety concerns, including issues with steam generator tubes and the reactor's pressure vessel.
The NRC treated Lorion's letter as a formal citizen petition for enforcement action under its regulation, 10 C.F.R. § 2.206.
The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation investigated Lorion's claims, compiled a 547-page record, and ultimately decided not to take the enforcement action Lorion had requested.
The Director provided Lorion with a written explanation detailing the reasons for denying her petition.

Procedural Posture:

Joette Lorion filed a petition with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requesting that it institute a proceeding to suspend the operating license of the Turkey Point nuclear reactor.
The NRC's Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denied the petition in a written decision.
Lorion unsuccessfully sought review of the Director's denial from the full Commission, making the denial a final agency order.
Lorion petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for judicial review of the NRC's final order.
The Court of Appeals, acting on its own initiative (sua sponte), dismissed the petition for lack of initial subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that review should begin in a U.S. District Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuit courts on the jurisdictional issue.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does 42 U.S.C. § 2239 grant federal courts of appeals exclusive initial subject-matter jurisdiction to review a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) final order denying a citizen's petition to institute a proceeding to suspend a nuclear reactor's license?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Brennan

Yes, 42 U.S.C. § 2239 grants federal courts of appeals exclusive initial subject-matter jurisdiction over an NRC order denying a citizen's enforcement petition. The court's jurisdiction is determined by the subject matter of the agency action (a licensing decision), not by the procedures the agency used (whether a hearing was held). The language of § 2239 is ambiguous, so the court looked to legislative history and statutory purpose. Congress intended to provide for initial court of appeals review for all final orders in licensing proceedings to promote efficiency and avoid duplicative review in both district and appellate courts. The Hobbs Act, which governs this review, explicitly allows for review on an administrative record even when no hearing occurred. Basing jurisdiction on the occurrence of a hearing would create an irrational bifurcated system where review of identical subject matter would depend on the fortuitous circumstance of whether an interested party requested a hearing. The proper focus of judicial review is the administrative record, which agencies compile even in informal actions, making the fact-finding capacity of a district court unnecessary.

Dissenting - Justice Stevens

No, a denial of a request to institute a proceeding is not a 'final order entered in any proceeding' of the kind specified in § 2239(a) and therefore is not subject to initial review in the court of appeals. The plain language of the statute is unambiguous: court of appeals review is limited to orders entered in proceedings for granting, suspending, or revoking a license. A decision not to institute such a proceeding is, by definition, not an order entered within one. The NRC's own regulations distinguish between a request to institute a proceeding and the proceeding itself. Furthermore, an agency's decision not to take enforcement action is generally committed to its discretion and is presumptively unreviewable. Congress's failure to provide a direct path to the court of appeals for such informal decisions likely reflects this principle, and the Court should not rewrite the clear statutory text to create jurisdiction where none exists.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the role of the federal courts of appeals as the primary forum for initial review of final NRC licensing decisions, broadly interpreting what constitutes a 'proceeding' for jurisdictional purposes. By prioritizing the subject matter of the agency action over the procedural formalities, the Court promotes judicial efficiency and prevents the bifurcation of review between district and appellate courts. This ruling ensures a streamlined path for challenges to NRC enforcement discretion, even for summary denials, and reinforces the principle that judicial review of agency action should be based on the administrative record, regardless of whether a formal, trial-type hearing occurred.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion (1985)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature