42 U.S.C. § 2271

General provisions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Authority of President to utilize Government agencies

To protect against the unlawful dissemination of Restricted Data and to safeguard facilities, equipment, materials, and other property of the Commission, the President shall have authority to utilize the services of any Government agency to the extent he may deem necessary or desirable.

(b) Criminal violations

The Federal Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice shall investigate all alleged or suspected criminal violations of this chapter.

No action shall be brought against any individual or person for any violation under this chapter unless and until the Attorney General of the United States has advised the Commission with respect to such action and no such action shall be commenced except by the Attorney General of the United States: Provided, however, That nothing in this subsection shall be construed as applying to administrative action taken by the Commission.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, § 221, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, § 1, 68 Stat. 958; amended Pub. L. 91–161, § 5, Dec. 24, 1969, 83 Stat. 445; Pub. L. 101–647, title XII, § 1211, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4833; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, § 902(a)(8), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2944.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (b) and (c), was in the original “this Act”, meaning act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, as added by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, § 1, 68 Stat. 919, known as the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2011 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

1990—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 101–647 struck out “That no action shall be brought under section 2272, 2273, 2274, 2275, or 2276 of this title except by the express direction of the Attorney General: And provided further,” after “Provided however,”.

1969—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 91–161 provided that nothing in this subsection should be construed to apply to administrative action taken by the Commission.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases, 1959–2019 · leading case: William B. Newton v. Duke Energy Florida, LLC, 895 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

William B. Newton v. Duke Energy Florida, LLC, 895 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2018). “2, 1981), that the general enforcement provision of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2271 , does not create a private right of action.”

United States v. Best, 476 F. Supp. 34 (D. Colo. 1979). · cites it 3× “42 U.S.C. § 2271 provides: “(a) To protect against the unlawful dissemination of Restricted Data and to safeguard facilities, equipment, materials, and other property of the Commission, the President shall have authority to utilize the services of any Government agency to the…”

Corcoran v. New York Power Auth., 935 F. Supp. 376 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 2271 (emphasis supplied); see also County of Suffolk v.”

Brown v. Ne. Nuclear Energy Co., 48 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Conn. 1999). · cites it 4× “Brown bases his right to seek injunctive relief against Northeast Nuclear on 10 C.F.R. § 26.90 . However, the Court does not find that such provision creates a private cause of action in light of Congress’ express prohibition against private enforcement of the Atomic Enforcement…”

Susquehanna Valley All. v. Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor, 619 F.2d 231 (3rd Cir. 1980). · cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 2271 (c). The only exception for private enforcement appears to be the opportunity to participate in the NRC’s administrative proceeding as provided in the Commission’s regulations and seek judicial review under section 2239(a).”

Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co. v. Local 94 Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 140 F. Supp. 2d 384 (D.N.J. 2001). · cites it 2× “1999) (stating that there is no private cause of action “in light of Congress’ express prohibition against private enforcement of the Atomic Enforcement Act in 42 U.S.C. § 2271 (c), which provides: ‘No action shall be brought against any individual or person for any violation…”

Cnty. of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 728 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “The general enforcement provision of the AEA, 42 U.S.C. § 2271 , expressly precludes private judicial enforcement of the Act, except under clearly enumerated conditions.”

Local 3-689, Oil, Chem. & Atomic Int'l Union v. Martin Marietta Energy Sys., Inc. Dep't of Energy, 77 F.3d 131 (6th Cir. 1996). “Also found in chapter 23 is 42 U.S.C. § 2271 (c): No action shall be brought against any individual or person for any violation under this chapter unless and until the Attorney General of the United States has advised the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission with respect to such…”

Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, Inc. v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 604 F. Supp. 1084 (E.D.N.Y 1985). “1980), (“ ‘no action’ language in 42 U.S.C. § 2271 (c) is not couched in jurisdictional terms”), cert.”

Gen. Pub. Utils. Corp. v. Susquehanna Valley All., 449 U.S. 1096 (1981). “§ 2239 (b), and that private parties may not judicially enforce the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 2271 (c), it nonetheless found that the District Court had jurisdiction to compel Commission compliance with NEPA.”

Robert L. Liesen v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 636 F.2d 94 (5th Cir. 1981). “The general enforcement provision of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2271 , clearly precludes private judicial enforcement: No action shall be brought against any individual or person for any violation under this chapter unless and until the Attorney General of the United…”

United States v. French, 10 C.M.A. 171 (1959). “However, it is my view that the intent of Congress is made clear by the statute and that if the actions of accused were alleged as a violation of the Atomic Energy Act and charged under the third subsection of Article 134 of the Code, supra, as a crime not capital, the…”

Show all 23 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.