Court Opinion

ID: 9427934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:22:16.802844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:10.633805
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Blackmun,
concurring in the result.
For the reasons stated in my Brother Stevens’ dissent, I accept the Court’s conclusion that the Agency’s determination in this case constituted “final” action. The opaque language of § 307 (b)(1) and the scant attention it received by Congress, however, leave me in doubt concerning Congress’ true intention with respect to the scope of direct appellate review. Like my dissenting Brethren, I find it difficult to believe that Congress would undertake such a massive expansion in the. number of Agency actions directly reviewable by the courts of appeals without some palpable indication that it had given thought to the consequences. Nonetheless, I agree with the Court that the dearth of evidence to the contrary makes its broad interpretation of the statute inescapable. On this legislative record, we must leave to Congress, should it be so inclined, the task of introducing some clear limitation on appellate jurisdiction over review of informal Agency determinations like the one now before us.