Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
975 F.2d 871 (1992)
- Written by Susie Cowen, JD
Facts
Critical Mass Energy Project (CMEP) (plaintiff) submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (defendant) for the release of certain reports that the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) provided to NRC. INPO submitted the sought reports voluntarily on the condition that the agency would not release the information to other parties without INPO’s consent. NRC denied CMEP’s request on the ground that the requested information was exempt from disclosure. CMEP challenged the denial of its request in federal district court. The district court granted NRC's motion for summary judgment after finding that the requested information was exempt from disclosure. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. INPO then intervened in the litigation. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of NRC after finding, among other things, that releasing the requested information would harm the government's interest in cooperating with INPO. The D.C. Circuit again reversed the judgment and remanded the case, but the court then granted a petition to rehear the case en banc.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Buckley, J.)
Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
