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 state's 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

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers. The decision articulated a doctrine now known as "Chevron deference". The doctrine consists of a two-part test applied by the court, when appropriate, that is highly deferential to government agencies: "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction [emphasis added] of the statute", so long as Congress has not spoken directly to the precise issue at question.

<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. It is generally considered to be more conservative than the preceding Rehnquist Court and the most conservative court since the Vinson Court of the 1940s and early 1950s. This is due to the retirement of moderate Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the confirmation of conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett in their places, respectively.

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

Neil McGill Gorsuch is an American lawyer and judge 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 173,875 pounds (78.9 tonnes) of U3O8 in 2019, 88% lower than the 2018 production of 1,447,945 pounds (656.8 tonnes) of U3O8 and the lowest US annual production since 1948. The 2019 production represents 0.3% of the anticipated uranium fuel requirements of the US's nuclear power reactors for the year.

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. In October 2015, a federal judge will decide whether to lift the state ban. 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 the decision in Gonzales v. Raich 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. ___ (2018), 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. ___ (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. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because they are gay or transgender.

Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), also known as Alliance for Open Society 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.

HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with exemptions from blending requirements for small refineries set by the Renewable Fuel Standard program. The case dealt with the statutory interpretation of the congressional language for extending the exemption, if this allowed a lapse in the exemption or not. In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that by the majority's interpretation of the law, the congressional law did allow for refineries to seek extensions after their exemption period had lapsed.

City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the application of zoning restrictions on digital billboards in the city of Austin, Texas. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court ruled that the Austin regulation against off-premise digital signs was content-neutral and thus should be reviewed as a facial challenge rather than a strict scrutiny following from the reasoning in Reed v. Town of Gilbert.

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.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held, 6–3, that the government, while following the Establishment Clause, may not suppress an individual from engaging in personal religious observance, as doing so would violate the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

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.

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 (2019-06-17). "Opinion analysis: Virginia's moratorium on uranium mining is not pre-empted, but the role of legislative purpose remains open for debate". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved 2019-11-26.
  3. 1 2 3 Jaffe, Cale (2019-01-11). "Virginia's uranium mining battle flips traditional views of federal and state power". The Conversation. Retrieved 2019-11-27.
  4. 1 2 Hammond, Emily (2018-11-06). "Argument analysis: Justices express skepticism over using legislative motive in pre-emption analysis". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved 2019-11-26.
  5. 1 2 Ward, Terry (2015-10-10). "Uranium Mining Might Start in Virginia Soon". WHSV. Retrieved 2019-11-27.
  6. 1 2 3 Stohr, Greg (2019-06-17). "Virginia uranium-mining ban upheld by US Supreme Court". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 2019-11-26.
  7. 1 2 3 "Virginia's uranium mining ban upheld". Arkansas Democrat Gazette. 2019-06-18. Retrieved 2019-11-27.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Leonard, Barbara (2018-05-21). "High Court to Probe Virginia Ban on Uranium Mining". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved 2019-11-27.
  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 (2018-05-21). "Justices grant 4 new cases". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved 2019-11-27.
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.