Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group

Supreme Court of the United States · 1978 · Federal Courts

438 U.S. 59 (1978)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal Courtsstandingnexusinjury in factfairly traceableredressabilitytaxpayer standingFlast

Facts

Congress enacted the Price-Anderson Act to encourage private development of nuclear power while providing a compensation scheme and a ceiling on aggregate liability for a nuclear incident. Duke Power was constructing nuclear plants in North Carolina and South Carolina, and the plaintiffs lived or worked near the planned facilities. The District Court found present injuries from the plants' operation, including thermal pollution of nearby lakes, interference with river use, reduced property values, emissions of non-natural radiation, and fear arising from those conditions. The court also found a substantial likelihood that the plants would not be completed or operated but for the liability protection provided by the Act.

Issue

Whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing and whether their constitutional challenge was ripe, even though the injury directly tied to the liability cap would arise only if a major nuclear accident occurred. Also, whether standing required a separate nexus between the injuries alleged and the precise constitutional rights asserted.

Rule

To satisfy Article III standing, a plaintiff must show a distinct and palpable injury and a fairly traceable causal connection between that injury and the challenged conduct, with a substantial likelihood that the requested relief will prevent or redress the injury. Outside the context of taxpayer suits, a litigant need not demonstrate a separate subject-matter nexus between the injury alleged and the constitutional right asserted; injury in fact and likely redress are enough when prudential limits are otherwise satisfied.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress creates a federal liability-limitation program for privately operated geothermal plants. Residents near a planned plant outside Reno, Nevada, sue the federal regulator, alleging the statute is unconstitutional. The trial court finds the plant will release heat into a nearby reservoir used for swimming and fishing and will emit small but measurable non-natural gases into the surrounding air before any major accident occurs.

Do the residents most likely satisfy Article III's injury-in-fact requirement?

Explanation. Article III requires a distinct and palpable injury. The majority accepted present environmental harms, such as thermal pollution and emissions into the plaintiffs' environment, as concrete injuries. The residents need not wait for a catastrophic accident if they already suffer present harmful effects from the facility's operation. (Derived from Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group (1978).)