SCOTUS erred in allowing nuclear agency to go unchallenged

Washington, DC; June 18, 2025:  Today, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision in Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) v. Texas, that Texas was not entitled to judicial review of the NRC’s decision to license the storage of spent nuclear fuel in that State. Rather than reach the merits—which get to the heart of the agency’s authority—the Court relied on the Hobbs Act to deny the availability of review. 

PLF filed an amicus brief in this case outlining the issues with the government’s interpretation of the Hobbs Act, which allows the NRC to shield itself from judicial scrutiny of the agency’s purported authority.  In his dissent Justice Niel Gorsuch cited PLF’s brief in arguing that judicial review should be available under the Hobbs Act and the agency “effectively denied all third-party participation.”  

“In NRC v Texas, the Court was mistaken to affirm the government’s self-serving interpretation of the Hobbs Act. While we take no position on the merits, the Court should have reached them,” said Will Yeatman, Senior Fellow at Pacific Legal Foundation. “Instead, the majority’s decision allows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue to block judicial scrutiny of the agency’s asserted authority.”