The U.S. Supreme Court case Metropolitan Edison Co. et al. v. People Against Nuclear Energy et al., 1982, revolved around the question of whether psychological harm from nuclear power plant operations should be considered in environmental impact statements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The dispute began when a partial meltdown occurred at Three Mile Island's Unit 2 reactor near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in March 1979 and Metropolitan Edison Company sought to restart its undamaged Unit 1 reactor on the same site later that year. People Against Nuclear Energy (PANE) opposed this move, arguing that potential psychological health damage caused by fear of another accident was an "effect" which NEPA required federal agencies to consider before allowing such action. However, the Supreme Court ruled against PANE with a majority decision stating that NEPA does not require consideration of far-reaching effects like psychological harm due to public apprehension about nuclear accidents while preparing an environmental impact statement for licensing actions related to nuclear power plants.

In the dissenting opinion for Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was too narrow in its interpretation of what constitutes a significant environmental impact under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act). He contended that psychological harm and community disruption should be considered as potential impacts of major federal actions, such as licensing nuclear power plants. The justice believed that these types of harms were within the "human environment" which NEPA seeks to protect. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for ignoring substantial evidence presented by petitioners about potential psychological effects caused by fear of nuclear accidents. In his view, this case represented an opportunity to broaden understanding and application of environmental law beyond purely physical or ecological damage.