COMMITTEE FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY, INC. v. SCHLESINGER
404 U.S. 917

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

COMMITTEE FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY, INC. v. SCHLESINGER , 404 U.S. 917 (1971)

404 U.S. 917

COMMITTEE FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY, INC.
v.
James R. SCHLESINGER et al.
No. A-483.

Supreme Court of the United States

November 6, 1971

The Application for Injunction in Aid of Jurisdiction presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE as Circuit Justice for the District of Columbia Circuit and referred by him to the Court, having been considered by the Court on oral argument and on the papers and documents submitted by the parties, is hereby denied.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS.

I would grant the injunction so that the case can be heard on the merits. The most serious question tendered is whether the Atomic Energy Commission has satisfied the mandate of the National Environmental

Page 404 U.S. 917 , 918

Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. By 102(C) of that Act,1 Congress directed each agency of the Federal Government to 'include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on--

    '(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,
    '(ii) any adverse environment effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,
    '(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
    '(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and
    '(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.'

I agree with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F.2d 1109, that 'if the decision [under NEPA] was reached [by AEC] procedurally without individualized consideration and balancing of environmental factors-conducted fully and in good faith-it is the responsibility of the courts to reverse.'

That opinion, rendered on July 23, 1971, by a panel consisting of Judges Wright, Tamm, and Robinson, found that AEC's procedures in this nuclear area did not comply with the Act and that its entire approach [404 U.S. 917 , 919]


Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.