Justice Gorsuch Accuses Supreme Court of Indulging 'Fantasies'

Newsweek

8 hours ago

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing in his dissenting opinion in Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, accused the court's majority of indulging in "fantasies" by dismissing the challengers' access to judicial review.
Why It Matters
In a 6-3 decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court reversed a lower-court ruling that had struck down a federal license for a temporary nuclear waste storage site in Texas. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, while Gorsuch filed the dissent.
The Supreme Court has the authority to overturn lower court rulings, and in this case, it reversed a decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
More than 50 nuclear power plants operate across the United States, generating electricity for homes, businesses and other uses. Those facilities also produce highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel, which must be carefully stored.
What To Know
The case centers on Interim Storage Partners' effort to build a facility in West Texas to store spent nuclear fuel. To do so, the private company needed approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which granted the license despite the proposed site being hundreds of miles from the nearest nuclear reactor. The decision drew objections from the State of Texas and a nearby landowner, Fasken Land and Minerals, who argued that the plan was potentially dangerous and in violation of federal law.
A lower court struck down the NRC's federal license for the nuclear waste storage site.
The majority opinion claimed that neither Texas nor Fasken Land and Minerals were official parties "eligible to obtain judicial review in the Fifth Circuit," and "For that reason, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and do not decide the underlying statutory dispute over whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission possesses authority to license private off-site storage facilities," Kavanaugh wrote.
Therefore, Texas and Fasken cannot sue over the NRC license, as federal law, specifically the Hobbs Act, allows only a "party aggrieved" to seek judicial review. The ruling did not address the actual nuclear waste site or licensing.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 21, 2017.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 21, 2017.
AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
In the dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined, Gorsuch claimed that the NRC's licensing decision was "unlawful." He added that both the state and the landowners are "aggrieved" by the NRC's decision, because "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."
He continued, "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."
Gorsuch argued the NRC violated the law, and the courts should hear the challenge.
He concluded the opinion, writing, "Because nothing in the law requires us to indulge any of those fantasies, I respectfully dissent."
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court is expected to release a slew of opinions in the coming weeks, with the term scheduled to end in late June.