Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas

Summary

The Supreme Court held that Texas and Fasken Land and Minerals were not entitled to judicial review of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing decision because they were not parties to the Commission's licensing proceeding. The Court concluded that submitting comments or unsuccessfully seeking intervention did not confer party status under the Atomic Energy Act and Hobbs Act. The Court reversed and remanded without deciding whether the Commission had authority to license a private off-site facility for spent nuclear fuel storage.

Holdings

1. Only a license applicant or a person who has been admitted by the NRC as an intervenor is a party to an NRC licensing proceeding for purposes of the Hobbs Act. Because Texas was not an applicant and neither Texas nor Fasken successfully intervened, neither was entitled to judicial review of the NRC's licensing decision.
2. Fasken could not use a new Hobbs Act action challenging the NRC's licensing order to collaterally attack the final D.C. Circuit judgment affirming denial of its intervention petition.
3. Texas and Fasken could not maintain nonstatutory ultra vires claims because their claims were ordinary statutory-authority arguments and the statutory review scheme provided an adequate opportunity for judicial review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Texas and Fasken were 'parties aggrieved' entitled to seek judicial review of the NRC's licensing order under the Hobbs Act.
2. Whether submitting comments on the draft environmental impact statement or unsuccessfully seeking intervention conferred party status in the NRC licensing proceeding.
3. Whether Fasken could collaterally attack the prior D.C. Circuit judgment upholding denial of its intervention petition.
4. Whether Texas and Fasken could obtain nonstatutory ultra vires review despite the Hobbs Act's judicial-review scheme.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded