Skip to content
Project Curia
Supreme Court decisions
No. 23-1300Jun 18, 2025EnergyReversed

The question

Whether Texas and Fasken Land and Minerals, which submitted comments in the Commission's licensing proceeding but were not admitted as parties, may obtain judicial review of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's decision to license a spent nuclear fuel storage facility.

NRC v. Texas

What the Court decided

The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit, which had vacated Interim Storage Partners' license to build a spent nuclear fuel storage facility in West Texas. Texas and Fasken were not entitled to judicial review of the Commission's licensing decision because they were not parties to the licensing proceeding. Under the Hobbs Act only a party aggrieved may seek review, and under the Atomic Energy Act a person becomes a party only by being the license applicant or by requesting to intervene and being admitted by the Commission. Fasken's separate challenge to the denial of its intervention petition was already decided by the D.C. Circuit and was final, so it could not be relitigated through a new Hobbs Act suit.

How the justices split

6-3
In favor 6Against 3
Kavanaugh
Roberts
Sotomayor
Kagan
Barrett
Jackson
Gorsuch
Thomas
Alito

The Court's opinion

Kavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, Jackson

The Hobbs Act permits only a party aggrieved by a Commission licensing order to seek judicial review. Under the Atomic Energy Act a person becomes a party to a licensing proceeding only as the license applicant or by requesting to intervene and being admitted by the Commission. Texas and Fasken submitted comments but were not admitted as parties, and Fasken's intervention petition was denied. Fasken already obtained review of that denial in the D.C. Circuit, which upheld the Commission, and that decision is final, so Fasken cannot collaterally attack it through a new Hobbs Act suit.

Dissenting

Gorsuch, joined by Thomas, Alito

Gorsuch, joined by Thomas and Alito, dissented from the Court's conclusion that Texas and Fasken could not obtain judicial review of the Commission's licensing decision.

How we know · 5 sourced claims
  • The Court held that Texas and Fasken were not entitled to obtain judicial review of the Commission's licensing decision because they were not parties to the licensing proceeding.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Under the Hobbs Act, only a party aggrieved by a licensing order of the Commission may seek judicial review.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Under the Atomic Energy Act, a person becomes a party only after requesting to intervene and being admitted to the proceeding by the Commission.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Fasken already obtained D.C. Circuit review of the denial of its intervention petition, which was upheld and became final, so it cannot collaterally attack that ruling through a new Hobbs Act suit.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson; Gorsuch filed a dissent joined by Thomas and Alito.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

Read the opinion on supremecourt.gov