Document: 423 U.S. 12 96 S.Ct. 172 46 L.Ed.2d 156 NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY,v. PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER OF the IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE AMERICA, INC., et al. 75-4 Nov. 11, 1975. djQ PER CURIAM, An Atomic Energy Commission Safety and Licensing Board approved issuance of a construction permit to Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (NIPSCO) for commercial nuclear powered electrical generating plant proposed be built on south shore Lake Michigan, in Porter County, Ind., RAI-74-4, p. 557 (1974). On appeal, an AEC Appeal Board, RAI-74-8, 244 (1974), sustained approval. petition review by intervenors administrative proceedings,1 divided panel ----------1.Porter County Chapter Izaak Walton League America, Inc.; Concerned Citizens Against Bailly Nuclear Site; Businessmen Interest, James E. Newman; Mildred Warner; George Hanks. NIPSCO, State Illinois, city Gary, intervened before Court Appeals. [13] Appeals Seventh Circuit set aside approval ground that failed follow Commission's own regulations governing "population center distance" siting. 515 F.2d 513 (7 Cir. 1975). The certiorari is granted, judgment reversed. Title 10 CFR § 100.10(b) (1975) provides "the will take . into consideration determining acceptability [proposed plant] site" distance," defined 100.3(c) as distance from reactor nearest boundary densely populated containing more than about 25,000 residents." At time NIPSCO's application also at Appeals' decision, 100.11(a)(3) further provided, pertinent part, "[a]s aid evaluating power applicant should determine unit least one one-third times outer low population zone. In applying this guide, due given distribution within center." Two miles was minimum allowable determined administratively pursuant 100.11(a)(3). Accepting determination, held violated agency's be- [14] cause corporate Portage, Ind. projected have excess 1980—lay 1.1 site. reaching conclusion rejected interpretation its prescribing computation purposes, where difference critical siting not solely political but "that portion which dense starts," 565. Under acceptable 4.5 miles.2 erred rejecting regulations. That supported wording consistent with prior agency decisions.3 does equate "dense center" or other entity, nor it define "boundary" terms pre-existing lines drawn non-siting purposes. Rather, require guide. Political boundaries, contrast, may many ----------2.We do understand discussion evidence regarding Portage imply alternative holding regulations.3In re Consumers Power Co., 5 A.E.C. 214, 218 (1972) (although nearby low-population zone, reduced acceptable" since "populous areas" were farther removed site zone radius); Consolidated Edison 43, 45 (1972); cf. Southern California (San Onofre Station), RAI-74-12, pp. 957, 960 n.7 [15] reasons irrelevant safe siting, thus encompass areas never likely harbor significant population.4 But even if meaning free doubt, reliance upon actual boundaries density sensibly conforms purpose circumstance, "obligated regard controlling [such] reasonable, consistently applied interpretation. ." Ehlert v. United States, 402 99, 105, 91 1319, 1323, 28 625 (1971). See Udall Tallman, 380 1, 16-17, 85 792, 801, 13 616 (1965); Reactor Electricians, 367 396, 408, 81 1529, 1535, 6 924 (1961); Bowles Seminole Rock & Sand 325 410, 413-414, 65 1215, 1217, 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945).5 reversed, case remanded contentions against decided So ordered. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concurring. Commission, general regulations, limited location plants so nearer specified number centers. After issuing ----------4.The opinion notes 1970 census enumeration districts, including area Portage's limits, lay less mile these however, without more, has no greater significance border.5 Our decision rely revision 100.11(a)(3), 40 Fed.Reg. 26526 (1975), published after Regulatory which, Reorganization Act 1974, 201, 88 Stat. 1242, 42 U.S.C. 5841 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), now discharges licensing responsibility formerly exercised Commission. [16] those successor, amended deviation. (1975). By today, holds "erred regulations." Ante, 14. I read today's way relying post hoc amendment save permit. 15 n.5. therefore concur Court's decision. conduct course litigation, compels comment. A certain danger lurks ability perfunctorily mold conform instant needs. present case, performed important function advising all interested parties factors had satisfied license could issued. If conditions can changed willy-nilly hearing been adjudication made, cut loose moorings, opponent able tender competent bearing issues. Not just entire federal bureaucracy vested discretionary power, abuse public needs protection. "[A]dministrators must strive much they reasonably develop make known needed confinements through standards, principles, rules." K. Davis, Discretionary 59 (1969). Confinement cannot obtained rules change retroactively affect controversy. For some years, supposed [17] promote energy charged protecting abuse. promoter naturally shortsighted when comes adverse effects his project community. With establishment Congress undertook rectify weakness control system separating promotion safeguarding public.1 contest concluded would once put ahead public's safety. Eminent scientists steadfast opposing growth Nation. who think abandoned growing.2 future ----------1.The separation promotional regulatory functions accomplished under 1233, U.S.C.A. 5801 seq. IV). legislation transferred research development new Research Development Administration. 5814(c). AEC's became 5841(f). Also responsibilities Board. 5841(g). legislative history indicates division "a response growing criticism there basic conflict between regulation industry technology industry." S.Rep. No. 93-980, 2, U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News, 5471 "The [Nuclear Commission] responsibilities, keeping act separate developmental functions, are [the Administration]." Id., 19.2 J. Gofman A. Tamplin, Poisoned Power: Case Plants (1971); see Ford Kendall, What Price Power?, Trial, 11 (1974); Reacting Reactors, Hearings Procedure Related Legislation Subcommittee Joint Committee Energy, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1., 294-302 [18] country policy matter courts decide, oppose chance know what issues down adjudication, argue meaningfully any over—the protection afforded opposition scientific environmental groups greatly weakened. Ad rulemaking touching safety looked disfavor. Rose Hodges [96SCt175,423US19,46LEd2d162] 175 19 162 Jimmy H. ROSE Warden Isadore HODGES, Jr., Andrew Lewis, Jr. 75-139. Rehearing Denied Jan. 26, 1976. 1092, 888. CURIAM. 1 Respondents Lewis convicted committing murder perpetration rape Memphis, Tenn., sentenced death electrocution. July 31, 1972, Tennessee Criminal affirmed judgments conviction reversed record trial court issue punishment, declaring "(t)he Supreme States decreed sentence contrary Eighth Amendment .." State, 491 S.W.2d 624, 628 (1972). 2 August 7, Governor commuted respondents' sentences 99 years' imprisonment. 8, (represented petitioner here) filed timely rehearing Tenn.Code Ann. 16-451 (Supp.1974), such days entry judgment. 3 then found commutations "valid proper exercise executive authority," citing Bowen 488 373 (Tenn.1972), remand "for naught," affirming convictions sentences, modified, full, S.W.2d, 629. March 5, 1973, denied certiorari. 4 petitioned habeas corpus District asserting, inter alia, their Fourteenth rights illegal commutation sentences. Western Tennessee, dismissed failure exhaust state remedies. appealed Sixth Circuit. brief order, vacated Governor's "there viable commute" declared invalid.1 Upon reconsideration, noted vacating penalties modified comply order. However, did alter earlier except note respondents exhausted remedies point.2 7 necessary predicate granting relief determination custody violates Constitution, laws, treaties 2241; Townsend Sain, 372 293, 312, 83 745, 756, 9 770 (1963). dealing invalidity contains reference provision court.3 Whether imposed subject Governor, extent authority circumstances questions law resolved favor sustaining action supra. It province re-examine questions. 8 urge, support result reached Circuit, Amendments right jury infringed proceedings. We reject contentions. already guilt them death. term years Furman Georgia, 408 238, 92 2726, 33 346 Neither requires following defendant shall entitled anew jury. chooses allow reduce penalty resort judicial proceedings, Constitution affords impediment choice. Dreyer 187 71, 23 28, 47 79 (1902). Cf. Schick Reed, 419 256, 95 379, 430 motion leave proceed forma pauperis Reversed. deny BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. dissent two grounds: first, because errs reading include final invalids and, second, holding, summary disposition question validity certainly first impression particularly inappropriate.1 14 "commutations" finally invalid clearly emerges proceedings alleged five errors courts. Three (coerced confessions, prejudicial comments during voir dire, Hodge's claim Bruton 391 123, 1620, 20 476) attacked convictions, (invalid unconstitutional commutations). sentence; accordingly, issued show-cause order "solely allegedly specify degree verdicts." Rose, C-73-442 (W.D.Tenn., 15, 1973). accordingly answer only issue, merits. This ripe appeal; specifically, constitutionality appeal Appeals.2 Nevertheless, true initial language: 16 "(The) followed eight imposing remanding punishment light ((1972)), reason commute, we hold purported concomitant imposition committed (sic ) invalid." 74-1461, 511 1403 (CA6, Feb. 25, 17 same goes affirm merits Court, namely, jury-sentence observes confessed error exhaustion point. Accordingly, herewith." necessarily meant three constitutional attacks addressed Court. sua sponte made sense arise grounds. 18 surprisingly, therefore, sought rehearing. dispositively argued, precluded addressing carefully confined sentence. opportunity third, briefed Fourth, finally, argued surely crystal clear prevailed challenge convictions. True, good lawyer's would, State's challenged event soundness statement invalid. excision language quoted above "to issues." obviously recognized error. rehearing, while deleting whole statement, delete emphasized left factual occurred: (order the) (to court) ((1972))." 519 1402 June 10, 21 Significantly squarely finding issue. 22 record, denial least, vacate clarification whether decided. event, strikingly inappropriate. There lower proceeding More importantly, briefing oral argument. example, find troublesome (since existed commute) treated 99-year affording constitutionally secured safeguards required imposed. acted, resentencing highlighted usual safeguards, none action. plainly insubstantial; Mempa Rhay, 389 128, 254, 336 (1967), (there counsel) sentencing stage. Was actually stage commute acted? Also, process dimensions relevant open McGautha California, 183, 218-220, 1454, 1473, 711 "sentenced" opportunity, assuming Federal permits adopt preference sentencing? agree allows empower assumes, in-depth analysis, involves despite fact voided nonexistent acted. 24 my view reviewed. rather disposing summarily, grant returned life might determine. 39-2405 (1956). us probe beneath surface opinions below search logical foundation. cases unclear, technique required. Here, "hold(s) second otherwise specifically reaffirmed forced word. panels correctly recognized, virtually identical one, presented commutation. Smith 508 844 74-1087, decisions cited apposite. (1902), merely Due Process Clause bar powers. 84, 32. President petitioner's imprisonment, judicially upheld similar cases, ante, n. 3, serve substantiate record. Judge Miller member 1974), Peck participated v.Rose, 74-1087 Mar. 19, 1974). Both judges inconsistency among implicit suggestion conflicting decisions, explanation, inaccuracy Moreover, neither unpublished explicitly states being voided. Parenthetically, Circuit's Rule prohibits citation opinions. Am called respect prohibition?

Category: 8