Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren

Last updated

Virginia Uranium, Inc v. Warren
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 5, 2018
Decided June 17, 2019
Full case nameVirginia Uranium Inc., et al., v. John Warren, et al.
Docket no. 16-1275
Citations587 U.S. ( more )
139 S. Ct. 1894; 204 L. Ed. 2d 377
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorMotion to dismiss granted, Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. McAuliffe, 147 F. Supp. 3d 462 (W.D. Va. 2015); affirmed sub nom.Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 848 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 2023 (2018).
Holding
The Atomic Energy Act does not preempt Virginia's moratorium on uranium mining
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
PluralityGorsuch, joined by Thomas, Kavanaugh
ConcurrenceGinsburg (in judgment), joined by Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentRoberts, joined by Breyer, Alito
Laws applied
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, United States Constitution, Article VI

Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. In a split opinion, the Court held that the state of Virginia's ban on uranium mining did not conflict with the Atomic Energy Act. [1] [2]

Contents

This case is significant because of its strong impact on environmentalism as well as its discussion of the interplay between states' rights and federal supremacy. [3] It also featured an extensive discussion as to what extent courts should evaluate a legislature's motive for passing a law. [4]

Background

Coles Hill, Virginia, in Pittsylvania County is the location of one of the largest known uranium deposits in the United States and the seventh largest uranium deposit in the world. The site's main uranium lode was discovered in 1979 on private land owned by the descendants of Walter Coles, who are now the founders and owners of Virginia Uranium, Incorporated. [5] Though VUI owned the land containing the proposed uranium mine, it could not extract the uranium due to a 1982 state ban on uranium mining. Virginia enacted this law after the notorious Three Mile Island disaster in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. [5] [6]

When uranium prices rose in the early 2000s, VUI renewed its efforts to develop the mine. Though VUI claimed that its proposed mining site would have generated up to $4.8 billion in net revenue for Virginia businesses, environmental groups criticized the plans, noting that uranium mining contributed to increased cancer rates, acidification of waterways, and air pollution. [3] Local businesses also criticized the proposed uranium mining project, citing potential harm to agriculture, tourism, and other economic development opportunities. [3] VUI lobbied the Virginia General Assembly to loosen the ban. [7] State Senators John Watkins and Richard Saslaw sponsored a bill that would have created a licensing scheme for issuing uranium permits in 2013. [8]

However, following the election of Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and his vow to veto any effort to lift the uranium ban, VUI decided to pursue a judicial remedy instead. [7]

Broadly speaking, the development of uranium is a three step process: physically mining the uranium from the ground; milling the ore to produce yellowcake (urania); and safely securing the waste material (known as 'tailings'). [2] [7] The federal Atomic Energy Act of 1954 confers the responsibility for regulating the second and third steps of the process (milling ore to create yellowcake and storing the tailings) to the United States Atomic Energy Commission (now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) following the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974). Regulating the first step (mining of ore) has traditionally been left up to the state governments. [2]

VUI's argument is that Virginia's ban on mining was in fact motivated by health and safety concerns related to milling ore and storing the waste. [6] Though VUI conceded that the state had the authority to regulate mining, they argued that the Virginia General Assembly's improper motivation for passing the law meant that it should be preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. [4]

In lower courts

VUI first took its case to the Western District Court of Virginia in November 2015. [8] Judge Jackson L. Kiser of the Western District granted Virginia's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ruling in part that the Atomic Energy Act did not conflict with Virginia's ban on uranium mining. [9] Though the District Court acknowledged that prior Supreme Court precedent required states to have a non-safety rationale to regulate activities that were within the NRC's purview, it also determined that first phase of uranium development (mining) was not covered by the AEA. [9] It also held that the District Court would not delve into the motivations of the state in passing the law. [8]

VUI appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 2016. In 2017, the Fourth Circuit upheld the District Court's determination. [10] [8] VUI appealed again, this time to the United States Supreme Court, which granted a writ of certiorari agreeing to hear the case on May 21, 2018. [11] [12] Attorney Charles J. Cooper, founder of the law firm Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, argued the case on behalf of Virginia Uranium. Toby J. Heytens, the Solicitor General of Virginia, represented the state before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court opinion

On June 17, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Virginia and upheld the state ban. [1] Justice Neil Gorsuch announced the judgment of the Court and authored an opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. The Court held that the Virginia moratorium on uranium mining was not preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act. Gorsuch's opinion emphasized that the plain language of the Atomic Energy Act was that it regulated activity only after the uranium was removed from the earth, leaving regulation of mining activity to the states. Gorsuch also rejected the approach of examining the state legislature's purpose for enacting the ban, stating that such an inquiry would generate unnecessary inconsistencies and intrude on the state legislature's ability to have a free and open debate. [2] [6]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for herself and for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, wrote a separate opinion concurring with Gorsuch's final judgment. However, they did not join the part of Gorsuch's opinion which discussed role of inquiring into the state legislature's purpose, which they viewed as falling outside the scope of the case.

Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito. Roberts asserted that the majority failed to reckon with whether a state could indirectly regulate a preempted activity (such as the milling and storage of uranium) by regulating a non-preempted activity (such as mining). [2]

Related Research Articles

Charles J. "Chuck" Cooper is an appellate attorney and litigator in Washington, D.C., where he is a founding member and chairman of the law firm Cooper & Kirk, PLLC. He was named by The National Law Journal as one of the 10 best civil litigators in Washington. The New York Times described him as "one of Washington’s best-known lawyers." He has represented prominent American political figures, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in response to the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections; Attorney General John Ashcroft; and former National Security Adviser and United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roberts Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court since 2005

The Roberts Court is the time since 2005 during which the Supreme Court of the United States has been led by John Roberts as Chief Justice. Roberts succeeded William Rehnquist as Chief Justice after Rehnquist's death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neil Gorsuch</span> US Supreme Court justice since 2017 (born 1967)

Neil McGill Gorsuch is an American jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President Donald Trump on January 31, 2017, and has served since April 10, 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Uranium mining in the United States</span> Uranium mining industry in U.S.

Uranium mining in the United States produced 224,331 pounds (101.8 tonnes) of U3O8 in 2023, 15% of the 2018 production of 1,447,945 pounds (656.8 tonnes) of U3O8. The 2023 production represents 0.4% of the uranium fuel requirements of the US's nuclear power reactors for the year. Production came from five in-situ leaching plants, four in Wyoming (Nichols Ranch ISR Project, Lance Project, Lost Creek Project, and Smith Ranch-Highland Operation) and one in Nebraska (Crowe Butte Operation); and from the White Mesa conventional mill in Utah.

Jackson Lintecum Kiser was an American attorney and jurist who served as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's SB 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement that wished to enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.

Coles Hill is an unincorporated community in Pittsylvania County, in the U.S. state of Virginia. It is the site of the largest uranium deposit in the U.S.; however a 1982 Virginia ban on uranium mining has kept its resources from being used commercially. The lode is the subject of an ongoing controversy about possible extraction. Lower courts ruled in favor of the state's ban, however in October 2018 the case was scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld Virginia's ban on uranium mining in Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren.

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld an Arizona state law suspending or revoking business licenses of businesses that hire illegal aliens.

Taylor v. United States, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in a federal criminal prosecution under the Hobbs Act, the government is not required to prove an interstate commerce element beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court relied on its decision in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) which held that Congress has the authority to regulate the marijuana market given that even local activities can have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.

Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that a company is not a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) if it purchased that debt and then attempts to collect from the debtor. It was Justice Neil Gorsuch's first written opinion since joining the Court in April 2017.

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, 584 U.S. 453 (2018) [138 S. Ct. 1461], was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The issue was whether the U.S. federal government has the right to control state lawmaking. The State of New Jersey, represented here by Governor Philip D. Murphy, sought to have the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) overturned, allowing state-sponsored sports betting. The case, formerly titled Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association until Governor Chris Christie left office, was combined with NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen v. NCAA No. 16-477.

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. 148 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) classifies some categories of crimes as "aggravated felonies", and immigrants convicted of those crimes, including those legally present in the United States, are almost certain to be deported. Those categories include "crimes of violence", which are defined by the "elements clause" and the "residual clause". The Court struck down the "residual clause", which classified every felony that, "by its nature, involves a substantial risk" of "physical force against the person or property" as an aggravated felony.

Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18–302, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a Supreme Court of the United States case related to the registration of trademarks under the Lanham Act. It decided 6–3 that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks of "immoral" or "scandalous" matter is unconstitutional by permitting the United States Patent & Trademark Office to engage in viewpoint discrimination, which violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Washington State Dep't of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855 preempts the state law which the State purported to be able to tax fuel purchased by a tribal corporation for sale to tribal members. This was a 5-4 plurality decision, with Justice Breyer's opinion being joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Ginsburg, penned a concurring opinion. There were dissenting opinions by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of sexuality or gender identity.

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 591 U.S. ___ (2020), also known as AOSI II, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that compelled speech required as a condition for funding on foreign non-governmental affiliates of U.S. non-government organizations does not violate First Amendment rights.

Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367, was a 2020 decision by the United States Supreme Court regarding whether inter partes review institution decisions by the United States Patent and Trademark Office were subject to judicial review. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued an opinion finding that such decisions were not judicially reviewable. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority's ruling, arguing that neither Congress or the Constitution authorized a lack of judicial review of such decisions.

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether the state of Texas could control and regulate gambling on Texan Native American reservations. In a 5–4 decision issued in June 2022, the Court ruled that the Restoration Act bans only gaming activities also banned by the state of Texas.

Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Association, 452 U.S. 264 (1981), is a United States Supreme Court case that unanimously held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to pass the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, which regulated surface mining on private property, because of this environmentally destructive industry's substantial effects on interstate commerce.

References

  1. 1 2 Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren,No. 16-1275 , 587 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1894 (2019).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Hammond, Emily (June 17, 2019). "Opinion analysis: Virginia's moratorium on uranium mining is not pre-empted, but the role of legislative purpose remains open for debate". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved November 26, 2019.
  3. 1 2 3 Jaffe, Cale (January 11, 2019). "Virginia's uranium mining battle flips traditional views of federal and state power". The Conversation. Retrieved November 27, 2019.
  4. 1 2 Hammond, Emily (November 6, 2018). "Argument analysis: Justices express skepticism over using legislative motive in pre-emption analysis". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved November 26, 2019.
  5. 1 2 Ward, Terry (October 10, 2015). "Uranium Mining Might Start in Virginia Soon". WHSV. Retrieved November 27, 2019.
  6. 1 2 3 Stohr, Greg (June 17, 2019). "Virginia uranium-mining ban upheld by US Supreme Court". Bloomberg News. Retrieved November 26, 2019.
  7. 1 2 3 "Virginia's uranium mining ban upheld". Arkansas Democrat Gazette. June 18, 2019. Retrieved November 27, 2019.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Leonard, Barbara (May 21, 2018). "High Court to Probe Virginia Ban on Uranium Mining". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved November 27, 2019.
  9. 1 2 Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. McAuliffe, 147F. Supp. 3d462 ( W.D. Va. 2015).
  10. ↑ Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 848F.3d590 ( 4th Cir. 2017).
  11. ↑ Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren,138S. Ct.2023(2018).
  12. ↑ Howe, Amy (May 21, 2018). "Justices grant 4 new cases". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved November 27, 2019.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.