Texas can’t go to court to block nuclear storage site, justices rule

The state of Texas and a local land management business are not “parties” within the meaning of the Hobbs Act for purposes of challenging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission‘s issuance of a license to build a facility in West Texas to store spent nuclear fuel, the U.S. Supreme Court decided 6-3 in reversing a decision from the 5th Circuit.

Click here to read the full text of the June 18 decision in Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas.

BULLET POINTS: “Under the Hobbs Act, only an aggrieved ‘party’ may obtain judicial review of a Commission licensing decision. To qualify as a party to a licensing proceeding, the Atomic Energy Act requires that one either be a license applicant or have successfully intervened in the licensing proceeding. In this case, however, Texas and [co-objector Fasken Land & Minerals] are not license applicants, and they did not successfully intervene in the licensing proceeding. So neither was a party eligible to obtain judicial review in the Fifth Circuit.”

— Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, opinion of the court

“Radioactive waste poses risks to the State, its citizens, its lands, air, and waters, and it poses dangers as well to a neighbor and its employees. But, the Court insists, the agency never admitted Texas or Fasken as ‘parties’ in a hearing it held before issuing [Interim Storage Partner’s] license — and that’s the rub. Maybe the agency’s internal rules governing who can participate in its hearing are highly restrictive. Maybe those rules are themselves unlawful. But, the Court reasons, its hands are tied: The agency did not admit Texas or Fasken as parties in its hearing, and that is that.

“I cannot agree. Both Texas and Fasken participated actively in other aspects of the NRC’s licensing proceeding. No more is required for them to qualify as ‘parties aggrieved’ by the NRC’s licensing decision. Both are entitled to their day in court — and both are entitled to prevail.”

— Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., dissenting