October Term 2024 · Docket 23-1300

Can a state sue over nuclear waste storage if it failed to join the agency process?

Texas and a private firm challenge a federal nuclear waste storage license. They argue they have standing despite missing agency deadlines.

Official caption
NRC v. Texas
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

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

    Mr. Stewart argued the petitions should be dismissed. He said Texas and Fasken were not parties to the agency proceedings.

    Mr. Frederick argued the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act excludes private offsite storage. He cited Section 10155(h) as proof.

    Mr. Fagg argued that a denied intervention request is a final order. He said this allows for judicial review under the Hobbs Act.

    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

Texas and Fasken want to block a federal nuclear waste storage license. They claim the agency ignored their interests. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wants the case dismissed. It argues they never joined the agency process properly.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 5, 2025.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Texas and Fasken want the license invalidated. They argue they have a legal right to challenge it.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wants the case dismissed. It argues the challengers lost their chance to participate.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Texas and Fasken argue their interests were affected. They claim the agency process did not protect their rights.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission argues the challengers were not parties. It claims they cannot sue now because they missed the deadline.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked when an interested person can intervene in agency proceedings.

Justice Gorsuch asked if the challengers failed to argue issue preclusion below.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines who can challenge federal nuclear waste licenses. It sets the rules for joining agency hearings. It affects state and private rights to block nuclear storage projects.

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

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

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

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

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

Download this sanitized case as JSON