Oral Argument: NRC v. Texas | Case No. 23-1300 | Date Argued: 3/5/25 episode artwork

EPISODE · Mar 5, 2025 · 1H 35M

Oral Argument: NRC v. Texas | Case No. 23-1300 | Date Argued: 3/5/25

from The High Court Report

Case Info: NRC v. Texas | Case No. 23-1300 | Date Argued: 3/5/25Link to Docket: Here.Questions Presented:Whether the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. 2341 et seq., which authorizes a "party aggrieved" by an agency's "final order" to petition for review in a court of appeals, 28 U.S.C. 2344, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency's statutory authority.Whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq., and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq., permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.(For Interim Storage Partners, LLC) Whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's exercise of authority to issue a license to a private party to temporarily possess spent nuclear fuel at a location away from an operating nuclear power reactor was lawful under the applicable statutes (as the D.C. and Tenth Circuits have held) or not (as the Fifth Circuit, deliberately splitting from those other circuits, held in this case). Whether, notwithstanding an allegation of "ultra vires" agency action, a person must take steps to become a "party" to an agency proceeding under the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. 2344, in order to then subsequently challenge the agency action resulting from that proceeding in court (as the Second, Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held), or whether an allegation of "ultra vires" agency action can override statutory limitations on jurisdiction (as the Fifth Circuit, deliberately splitting from those other circuits, held in this case).Host Note: Consolidated with: Interim Storage Partners, LLC V. Texas, Case No. 23-1312.Holding: Because Texas and Fasken were not parties to the Commission's licensing proceeding, they are not entitled to obtain judicial review of the Commission's licensing decision.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett and Jackson joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For petitioners in 23-1300: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For petitioner in 23-1312: Brad Fagg, Washington, D. C. For respondents Texas, et al.: Aaron L. Nielson, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.For respondent Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd.: David C. Frederick, Washington, D.C.

Episode metadata supplied by the publisher feed · Published Mar 5, 2025

Embed this episode

NOW PLAYING

Oral Argument: NRC v. Texas | Case No. 23-1300 | Date Argued: 3/5/25

0:00 1:35:50

No transcript for this episode yet

We transcribe on demand. Request one and we'll notify you when it's ready — usually under 10 minutes.

No similar episodes found.

No similar podcasts found.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long is this episode of The High Court Report?

This episode is 1 hour and 35 minutes long.

When was this The High Court Report episode published?

This episode was published on March 5, 2025.

Can I download this The High Court Report episode?

Yes. Use the download control on the episode player to save the publisher-provided media file.
URL copied to clipboard!