Supreme Court rejects Texas's bid to axe nuclear waste storage site
The Supreme Court rejected Texas's bid to axe federal approval of a nuclear waste storage facility, arguing the state did not have the right to bring its challenge in the first place.
© AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File
In a 6-3 decision, the court in effect upheld the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's decision to issue a license to a company that wanted to store nuclear waste off site from a power plant.
The opinion, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, said that Texas, as well as private company Fasken Land and Minerals, did not have the right to sue over the license.
'Under the Hobbs Act, only an aggrieved 'party' may obtain judicial review of a Commission licensing decision,' Kavanaugh wrote. 'Texas and Fasken are not license applicants, and they did not successfully intervene in the licensing proceeding. So neither was a party eligible to obtain judicial review.'
The opinion did not address the question in the underlying case, which was about whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be allowed to license private off-site nuclear waste storage sites.
Kavanaugh was joined by justices John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
The dissent, authored by Gorsuch, argued that Texas and Fasken should be allowed to sue.
'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 wrote.
'Both Texas and Fasken participated actively in other aspects of the NRC's licensing proceeding,' he added. 'Both are entitled to their day in court — and both are entitled to prevail.'
Read more at TheHill.com.
Welcome to The Hill's Energy & Environment newsletter, I'm Rachel Frazin — keeping you up to speed on the policies impacting everything from oil and gas to new supply chains.
Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here.
Essential Reads
How policy will affect the energy and environment sectors now and in the future:
Court blocks EPA from axing environmental justice grants
A federal judge this week barred the Trump administration from axing grants that were part of a $600 million program that aimed to tackle pollution in underserved communities.
Wildfires may be accelerating the spread of infectious disease by keeping US West residents indoors: Study
As climate-driven weather extremes fuel fires across the U.S. West, the tendency of residents to spend more time indoors may be accelerating the spread of infectious diseases, a new study has found.
Trump cuts to NOAA, NASA 'blinding' farmers to risks, scientists warn
The Trump administration's cuts to climate research and federal weather forecasting agencies are 'blinding' the U.S. to oncoming threats to its food supply — and kneecapping efforts to protect it.
What We're Reading
News we've flagged from other outlets touching on energy issues, the environment and other topics:
'Abolishing FEMA' Memo Outlines Ways for Trump to Scrap Agency (Bloomberg)
What Others are Reading
Two key stories on The Hill right now:
Senate GOP leader faces pushback after members blindsided by Trump bill
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is facing strong pushback from members of the GOP conference over the Finance Committee's piece of President Trump's tax and spending bill, which largely ignores GOP senators' concerns about Medicaid cuts and the quick phaseout of clean-energy tax credits. Read more
5 takeaways from Tucker Carlson's interview with Ted Cruz
Pundit Tucker Carlson published a nearly two-hour interview with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Wednesday, during which the two conservative firebrands debated President Trump's foreign policy, the future of the Middle East and America's place in the world. Read more
You're all caught up. See you tomorrow!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Hands off — Trump's off-base attack on NYC's sanctuary immigration policy
Intentionally misstating New York City's sanctuary immigration policy as thwarting the prosecution of violent criminals, the Trump administration continued its war on local government by filing suit in federal court last week, one of a number of similar lawsuits across the country that conflate civil noncooperation with active criminal interference and attempt to conscript local officials into President Donald Trump's destructive crackdown. This should prove to Mayor Mayor Adams and other state and city leaders that no amount of appeasement is going to forestall the targeting from Trump. Adams met multiple times with immigration coordinator Tom Homan, insisting that the two men had 'the same goal,' making concessions like signing off on the opening up of an ICE office on Rikers Island years after a city sanctuary law had kicked them out. It's clear that Trump and Homan were not and probably could not be placated to the extent that they would leave Adams and New York City alone. The reality is that this is a totalizing project; Stephen Miller and the rest of the White House want to rid the country almost entirely of immigrants, with or without legal status, and regardless of where they are or what effect that will have on our economy and society. They've been routinely violating the law to do so. It's worth noting once more that Trump's is a political movement that often proclaimed itself a defender of state rights and local control, but apparently that only extended to allowing local officials to detain immigrants, pull books from school shelves, limit access to abortion, curb labor and environmental protections and drive LGBTQ people from public life. When it comes to a refusal to participate in federal operations that have so far involved masked and unidentified agents shoving people into unmarked vehicles — just the sort of thing that we would call authoritarianism and tyranny anywhere else — then states and localities get no say beyond being extensions of a central government. We're not particularly worried that any competent judge would accept these nonsensical claims. A day after the New York case was filed, a federal judge in Chicago dismissed the Trump lawsuit against that city's sanctuary immigration policy. We just want to remind readers that sanctuary is not immunity from prosecution, especially prosecution for violent crimes. What it is however is that when someone is treated at a city health clinic for TB or enrolls a child in school or reports a crime to the police as a victim or a witness, the person's civil immigration status is irrelevant. We want everyone in the city to get treated when sick, we want all children to be in school, we want all crime victims and witnesses to come forward to the cops. The idea of anti-commandeering — the notion that the federal government can't force state and local governments to carry out its own agenda and enforcement functions — has been foundational from the genesis of our country's federalized system. The right of jurisdictions to enact sanctuary provisions that block the use of local resources for this federal function has been litigated over and over again, and always found to be on solid legal footing. We are, however, more worried about the U.S. Supreme Court, which has in the past several months taken it upon itself to sign off on Trump's expansive power grabs. It has allowed among other things Trump to fire federal employees and independent agency members in direct contravention of statute, allowed the limiting of a nationwide order blocking Trump's attempt to overturn the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provisions and allowed parents to impose religious beliefs on whole school curricula. If these questions get up to that high court level, we hope that the justices will exercise some of their independent power, as they did on other absolutely egregious instances like Trump's efforts to remove people without due process under the Alien Enemies Act proclamation. Anything else will destroy the trust of people in their own local officials and governments and strike at the very foundation of this country's system of government. _____
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What's in the US-EU trade deal depends on who is doing the talking
President Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen shook hands Sunday over a trade agreement touted as being largely concluded, but days later, there are still plenty of disagreements about exactly what is in the pact. Perhaps nowhere is the divide more stark than in the summaries published by each side — one from the White House and another from the European Commission. They depart in at least five areas, both in terms of the deal and the firmness of the commitments. In just one example, the White House summary touts "historic structural reforms and strategic commitments," while the Europeans call the handshake deal "not legally binding," with more negotiations to come. Trump quipped Sunday that a deal would be "the end of it" and that it would be a number of years "before we have to even discuss it again." That is unlikely to be the case, which even Trump's aides acknowledge. The difference is likely to come to a head quickly as negotiations continue between the US and Europe over legally binding text and as trade watchers wait for a formal joint statement on the deal that the teams still hope to unveil this week. A range of areas of disagreement Clarity on at least one headline area is clear: an agreement for 15% tariffs on nearly all EU goods, including autos, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals, that will be exempt from separate Trump plans there. But the divides are evident once you go deeper. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick acknowledged that a lot remains to be worked out when he told CNBC on Tuesday that "there's plenty of horse trading still to do," even as he argued that the "fundamentals" are set. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet Trump has also already set a pattern of fuzzy initial details on his deals, including a recent pact with Japan, but a comparison of the two documents summarizing the Europe deal underlines differences on many of the key aspects. On the issue of new investments by Europe — $750 billion in US energy and additional corporate investments of $600 billion — the summary from the US side described them as firm commitments. The European language is much less solid, saying it "intends to procure" additional energy and that European companies "have expressed interest" in additional investments. More differences are seen on whether the deal will mean European markets are "totally open," as Trump has said. The European summary of provisions around fish says they will allow "limited quantities" and only "certain non-sensitive" agricultural products. Another highly touted part of the agreement from the US side is a provision for Europe to purchase military equipment. As Trump said on Sunday, "They're going to be purchasing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of military equipment." That part isn't even mentioned in the European summary. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump back in court Thursday to defend the tariffs he plans to impose Friday
An imposing threat to President Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs will be tested by a panel of Washington, D.C., federal appeals court judges on Thursday, less than 24 hours before those duties are scheduled to take effect for countries around the world. In a case that is moving quickly through the judicial system, a group of small business importers and 12 states will clash with the US Justice Department over the president's authority to impose the tariffs without authorization from Congress. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is hearing the case, is reviewing a lower court's prior decision in May to strike down the president's tariffs. That ruling was put on hold pending a decision from a panel of appeals court judges, which is not expected before the additional tariffs take effect Friday. The tariffs that go into effect tomorrow were originally unveiled on April 2, which Trump dubbed "Liberation Day," and scheduled to start on April 9 but were then delayed 90 days and again to Aug. 1. Some of the rates have been adjusted after negotiations with major trading partners. Read more: 5 ways to tariff-proof your finances The courtroom showdown on Thursday will move businesses, investors, and consumers closer to answering a critical legal question that is materially affecting their bottom lines: Can the president unilaterally impose wide-ranging, global tariffs by invoking a law enacted in 1977 to protect the US from international threats? That law, known as 'IEEPA' — the International Economic Emergency Powers Act — authorizes the president to 'regulate' international commerce after declaring a national emergency. The appeals court judges are tasked with evaluating whether the president's declared national emergencies — the flow of illegal fentanyl and illegal immigration into the US — are the type of emergencies that Congress intended when it created the law. And if so, whether the "Liberation Day" tariffs are the type of regulation that Congress intended to address those emergencies. Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs Ilya Somin, the lawyer for the small business importers that successfully challenged Trump's tariffs before the US Court of International Trade in May, argued in a blog post earlier this month that a Supreme Court decision issued in June titled FCC v. Consumers' Research strengthens the challengers' opposition to the tariffs. The court held that Congress legally delegated authority to the Federal Communications Commission to impose fees on telecommunications companies. No matter how the appeals court rules, constitutional and trade law experts widely expect the case to eventually reach the US Supreme Court. If that happens, the matter could remain unsettled well into next year since the Supreme Court's next term doesn't start until October. A separate challenge to Trump's tariffs will also play out this fall. Two toy manufacturers are scheduled to make their own arguments against Trump's duties before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 30 after winning their own lower court victory. The Trump administration still has other options if it can't win these courtroom battles on IEEPA. There are alternative laws that the administration could test out as taxing authority, all of which would be expected to draw litigation. Somin, the lawyer for the small business importers challenging Trump's tariffs, told Yahoo Finance last month that "if we win" the Trump administration 'could try to use other statutes' to justify new tariffs. 'And that would be a lengthy, complex discussion about what [the president] can do,' added Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and constitutional studies chair at the Cato Institute. One alternative statute that the president could try to cite as authority for tariffs is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs on a foreign nation so long as the US trade representative finds the nation has violated trade agreements or engaged in unfair trade practices. Other statutes include Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which empowers the president to impose tariffs on certain imports designated as a threat to the US economy, and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which empowers the president to impose tariffs on countries that unreasonably restrict US goods. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Sign in to access your portfolio
