The American Paper Institute, Inc. v. American Electric Power Service Corp., et al., 1982 case revolved around the issue of whether or not a private party could sue for damages under section 307 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Supreme Court ruled that such suits were not permissible under this particular law. The court's decision was based on their interpretation of Congress' intent when drafting and passing the CAA - they concluded that Congress did not intend to create a private right to sue for damages in this context. Instead, they believed that Congress intended for enforcement actions to be brought by government agencies rather than individual parties seeking compensation for alleged violations.

In the dissenting opinion for American Paper Institute, Inc. v. American Electric Power Service Corp., Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). He argued that PURPA was not intended to give Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) such broad authority over individual contracts between utilities and their customers. Instead, he believed that Congress had intended for state regulatory authorities to have primary control over these matters. Furthermore, he contended that FERC’s regulations were inconsistent with PURPA’s statutory scheme because they did not adequately consider whether a utility could recover its costs from consumers before requiring it to purchase power from qualifying facilities at avoided cost rates. In his view, this failure undermined one of PURPA's main goals: protecting consumers from bearing undue financial burdens due to changes in energy policy.