Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rules Texas Lacks Standing to Challenge Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Decision

By Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Mark Magyar & Monika Harris on July 1, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the State of Texas and Fasken Land and Minerals Ltd., a private Texas-based company involved in oil and gas extraction and production, lack standing to challenge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) decision to license a private nuclear waste storage facility in West Texas. Writing for the majority in Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, Justice Kavanaugh concluded that neither Texas nor Fasken qualified as “aggrieved parties” under the Hobbs Act. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas.

As summarized in Dykema’s March 2025 issue, in 1980, the NRC issued regulations permitting private storage of nuclear waste—either on-site at nuclear plants or off-site—under renewable 40-year licenses. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) later designated Yucca Mountain as the national repository for nuclear waste, but that project was eventually suspended. The federal government then reverted to licensing private storage facilities.

In 2018, Interim Storage Partners (ISP) applied for a license to build the largest nuclear waste storage facility in the U.S., located in the Permian Basin. Fasken, operating in the region, attempted to intervene in the licensing proceedings but was denied. Despite environmental and safety concerns raised by Fasken and Texas, the NRC granted ISP’s license in 2021. Texas and Fasken then challenged the decision in the Fifth Circuit, which vacated the license, finding that the NRC lacked statutory authority—though it acknowledged uncertainty over whether Texas and Fasken were proper parties under the Hobbs Act. The NRC and ISP sought review, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Court reversed on justiciability grounds, holding that neither Texas nor Fasken met the Hobbs Act’s definition of “aggrieved parties.” Under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), only license applicants or successful intervenors qualify as parties to an NRC proceeding. Because Texas and Fasken failed to intervene successfully, the Court held they lacked statutory standing to challenge the license itself. At most, they could have sought review of the denial of intervention.

The Court also rejected the ultra vires claim, where a claimant asserts that a governmental body has acted beyond the scope of its legal authority, deeming it a thinly veiled statutory-authority argument that did not meet the stringent standards required for non-statutory ultra vires review.

Dicta on the Merits

Although the case was decided on justiciability grounds, the majority briefly addressed the merits. The Court emphasized that decades of statutory interpretation and agency practice support the NRC’s authority under the AEA to license private off-site nuclear waste storage. The majority criticized the dissent’s interpretation, noting that it would paradoxically imply that ISP—and similar applicants—would not need a license at all. Even ISP conceded at oral argument that such a result was implausible.

The Dissent

Justice Gorsuch’s dissent painted a markedly different picture. He argued that the AEA does not authorize off-site private nuclear waste storage and that, even if it did, the NWPA expressly prohibits such activity. He rejected the majority’s justiciability holding, asserting that participation in the NRC’s public-comment process should suffice to establish party status under the Hobbs Act. The dissent further argued that nothing in the AEA forecloses alternative paths to judicial review.

Takeaways

  • Clarified Standing Requirements: To challenge an NRC licensing decision under the Hobbs Act, a petitioner must either be a license applicant or a successful intervenor in the NRC proceedings.
  • Broader Support for NRC Authority: Although dicta, the majority’s analysis reinforces the NRC’s interpretation of its authority to license private off-site nuclear waste facilities—guidance that may influence lower courts.
  • Heightened Environmental Stakes: With the NRC’s licensing power reaffirmed, stakeholders may intensify scrutiny over environmental and public safety concerns related to private waste storage.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Mark Magyar, or Monika Harris. A special thanks to Summer Associate Mitchell Brost for assisting with this post.

Photo of Chantel Febus Chantel Febus

Chantel Febus is a Member in Dykema’s Washington, D.C., Office and serves as the firm’s Head of East Coast Appeals. As a Member of the Appellate and Critical Motions, Business Litigation, and Government Investigations and Corporate Compliance practices, Chantel partners with clients to

…

Chantel Febus is a Member in Dykema’s Washington, D.C., Office and serves as the firm’s Head of East Coast Appeals. As a Member of the Appellate and Critical Motions, Business Litigation, and Government Investigations and Corporate Compliance practices, Chantel partners with clients to navigate novel legal issues and emergent legal challenges.

Read more about Chantel FebusEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of James Azadian James Azadian

James Azadian is a Member in Dykema’s Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., offices and serves as the firm’s West Coast Appellate Chair and co-leader of the nationwide Appellate and Critical Motions Practice. Jimmy specializes in complex federal and state court commercial litigation raising…

James Azadian is a Member in Dykema’s Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., offices and serves as the firm’s West Coast Appellate Chair and co-leader of the nationwide Appellate and Critical Motions Practice. Jimmy specializes in complex federal and state court commercial litigation raising cutting-edge and core business issues, the First Amendment to the Constitution, Article I of the California Constitution, and the application of California’s anti-SLAPP statute in federal court.

Read more about James AzadianEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Mark Magyar Mark Magyar

At both the trial and appellate levels, Mark Magyar combines a thorough analysis of the facts and law with determined advocacy and personal commitment to obtaining favorable outcomes in a wide range of commercial and business disputes. Mark’s focus on the issues and…

At both the trial and appellate levels, Mark Magyar combines a thorough analysis of the facts and law with determined advocacy and personal commitment to obtaining favorable outcomes in a wide range of commercial and business disputes. Mark’s focus on the issues and arguments that matter while dispensing with those that distract or delay facilitates efficient resolutions that save his clients time, money, and disruption.

Read more about Mark MagyarEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Monika Harris Monika Harris

Monika Harris is an associate at Dykema’s Chicago office who specializes in business litigation matters. Monika provides valuable advice primarily to clients in the manufacturing and insurance industries. In her practice, she advises clients on litigation strategies for a variety of matters including…

Monika Harris is an associate at Dykema’s Chicago office who specializes in business litigation matters. Monika provides valuable advice primarily to clients in the manufacturing and insurance industries. In her practice, she advises clients on litigation strategies for a variety of matters including breach of warranty, premises liability, consumer financial services, breach of contract, deceptive business practices, and tortious interference with business expectancy. Monika represents business clients in federal and state courts.

Read more about Monika HarrisEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Administrative and Regulatory, Appellate and Supreme Court, Environmental and Climate
  • Blog:
    Last Month at the Supreme Court
  • Organization:
    Dykema
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo