October Term 2009 · Docket 132 ORIG.

Must North Carolina finish the nuclear waste compact?

Alabama demands North Carolina complete a shared nuclear waste facility. North Carolina claims the project is too costly to finish.

Official caption
Alabama v. North Carolina
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Alabama's lawyer argued North Carolina breached the compact.

    North Carolina's lawyer argued the project is not based on coercion.

    Justices questioned the financial feasibility of completing the facility.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Alabama seeks a court order forcing North Carolina to finish a nuclear waste facility. North Carolina argues the project costs exceed reasonable expectations. The dispute centers on a compact between the two states.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 11, 2010.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Alabama wants a court order forcing North Carolina to finish the facility.

North Carolina wants to stop work because the project is too expensive.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Alabama argues North Carolina breached the compact by quitting the project.

North Carolina argues the project costs exceed reasonable expectations at signing.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked why pursue a license without funding.

Justice Sotomayor asked about the reasonable cost of completion.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines state obligations in shared infrastructure compacts. It determines whether one state can abandon a joint project. The outcome affects taxpayer funds and nuclear waste management.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON