Court Opinion

ID: 9427933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:22:16.800947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:10.633484
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Powell,
concurring.
I continue to have reservations about the constitutionality of the notice and review preclusion provisions of § 307 (b). Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U. S. 275, 289 (1978) (Powell, J., concurring); see ante, at 592-593, n. 9. Congress has extended to 60 days the period within which a petition for review may be filed under §307 (b)(1). But publication in the Federal Register still is unlikely to provide constitutionally adequate notice that a failure to seek immediate review will bar affected parties from challenging the noticed action in a subsequent criminal prosecution. An informal exchange of letters, like those involved in this case, often will provide no greater protection. Although these constitutional difficulties well may counsel a narrow construction of §307 (b)(1), cf. Chrysler Corp. v. EPA, 195 U. S. App. D. C. 90, 98-100, 600 F. 2d 904, 912-914 (1979) (parallel provisions of Noise Control Act), no such construction is *595possible in this case. As the Court demonstrates, the intention of Congress is clear. Accordingly, I join the opinion of the Court.