Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Virginia Uranium v. Warren

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Virginia Uranium v. Warren
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: November 5, 2018
Decided: June 17, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
6-3
Majority
Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring
Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan
Dissenting
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito


Virginia Uranium v. Warren is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 5, 2018, during the court's 2018-2019 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.[1]

On June 17, 2019, the court affirmed the judgment of the 4th Circuit in a 6-3 opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito. Click here for more information on the opinion.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The Commonwealth of Virginia banned the mining of uranium in 1981, following the discovery of a uranium deposit in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. Virginia Uranium, the owner of the uranium mine, filed suit, asking the court to declare that the state ban was preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and to compel the state to grant uranium mining permits. The district court granted the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that the AEA does not "regulate nonfederal uranium deposits or their conventional mining." Virginia Uranium appealed, and the Fourth Circuit Court affirmed the lower court's ruling.
  • The issue: Whether the AEA preempts a state law that on its face regulates an activity within its jurisdiction (here uranium mining), but has the purpose and effect of regulating the radiological safety hazards of activities entrusted to the (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) NRC (here, the milling of uranium and the management of the resulting tailings).[2]
  • The outcome: On June 17, 2019, the court affirmed the judgment of the 4th Circuit in a 6-3 opinion. The court held "while the AEA affords the NRC considerable authority over the nuclear fuel life cycle, it offers no hint that Congress sought to strip States of their traditional power to regulate mining on private lands within their borders."[3]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[4]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 17, 2019: U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the 4th Circuit
    • November 5, 2018: Oral argument
    • May 21, 2018: U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case
    • April 21, 2017: Petition filed with U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 17, 2017: The 4th Circuit Court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the case because it found that the Virginia uranium mining ban was not preempted by federal law.[4]

    Background

    The Commonwealth of Virginia banned the mining of uranium in 1981, following the discovery of a uranium deposit in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. Virginia Uranium, the owner of the uranium mine, filed suit, asking the court to declare that the state ban was preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and to compel the state to grant uranium mining permits. The district court granted the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that the AEA did not "regulate nonfederal uranium deposits or their conventional mining."[4]

    Virginia Uranium appealed, and the 4th Circuit Court affirmed the lower court's ruling. The circuit court also found that although uranium milling (processing) and tailings (waste produced during milling) were federally regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Virginia law did not specifically mention milling or tailings storage, and therefore was not preempted by the AEA.[4]

    Virginia Uranium appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the court agreed to hear the case on May 21, 2018.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    • Does the Atomic Energy Act preempt a state law that on its face regulates an activity within its jurisdiction (here uranium mining), but has the purpose and effect of regulating the radiological safety hazards of activities entrusted to the NRC (here, the milling of uranium and the management of the resulting tailings)?

    Outcome

    On June 17, 2019, the court affirmed the judgment of the 4th Circuit in a 6-3 opinion. The court held "while the AEA affords the NRC considerable authority over the nuclear fuel life cycle, it offers no hint that Congress sought to strip States of their traditional power to regulate mining on private lands within their borders."[3]

    Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Breyer and Alito.

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[3]

    “ Unlike many federal statutes, the AEA contains no provision preempting state law in so many words. Even more pointedly, the statute grants the NRC extensive and sometimes exclusive authority to regulate nearly every aspect of the nuclear fuel life cycle except mining. ...


    The activity Virginia’s law regulates—mining on private land—isn’t one the AEA has ever addressed, and it isn’t one §2021 discusses, so subsection (k) does not authorize any judicial inquiry into state legislative purpose in this case. [5]

    		”

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.[3]

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Ginsburg wrote that Justice Gorsuch's " discussion of the perils of inquiring into legislative motive ... sweeps well beyond the confines of this case."[3]

    Dissenting opinion

    Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Breyer and Alito.[3]

    In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

    “ The lead opinion sets out to defeat an argument that no one made, reaching a conclusion with which no one disagrees. Specifically, the opinion devotes its analysis to whether the field of uranium mining safety is preempted under the Atomic Energy Act, ultimately concluding that it is not. But no party disputes that. Rather, the question we agreed to address is whether a State can purport to regulate a field that is not preempted (uranium mining safety) as an indirect means of regulating other fields that are preempted (safety concerns about uranium milling and tailings). And on that question, our precedent is clear: The AEA prohibits state laws that have the purpose and effect of regulating preempted fields. [5] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]

    Transcript

    Read the oral argument transcript here.

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "16-1275 Virginia Uranium v. Warren," accessed October 25, 2018
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "16-1275 Virginia Uranium v. Warren QPReport" accessed October 25, 2018
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Supreme Court of the United States, Virginia Uranium v. Warren, decided June 17, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 SCOTUSblog case file for Virginia Uranium v. Warren, accessed October 25, 2018
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Virginia Uranium v. Warren argued November 5, 2018
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Virginia_Uranium_v._Warren&oldid=9117293"