In a decision that set aside politics but not controversy, the U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the path for a private nuclear waste site in Texas, ruling that the challengers—Texas officials and oil industry groups—lacked the legal standing to halt the project.
The 6-3 decision, driven by procedural grounds rather than a direct ruling on nuclear oversight, reversed a lower court judgment that had blocked the license granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2021. At the heart of the case was a storage site planned by Interim Storage Partners, a fusion of French nuclear giant Orano and Texas-based Waste Control Specialists, which intends to stockpile high-level radioactive waste in Andrews County, just shy of the New Mexico border.
Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh made clear: if you weren’t part of the licensing process from the start, you don’t get to protest it in court. “To qualify as a party… one either must be an applicant or have successfully intervened,” he said. Texas and its oil allies, he noted, were neither.
That procedural fence ended the legal road—at least for now—for groups like Fasken Land and Minerals and the Permian Basin Coalition, who argued the facility posed grave risks to landowners, groundwater, and future generations. Texas and New Mexico, both of which joined the fight later, were also shown the door. New Mexico’s suit had already been tossed in earlier proceedings.
Not everyone on the bench was satisfied with that answer. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, penned a dissent that bristled with skepticism. “Both are entitled to their day in court—and both are entitled to prevail,” Gorsuch wrote, arguing that the real issue—whether the NRC had the power to grant this kind of license—deserved a direct ruling.
That question, technically speaking, remains unanswered. The majority opinion sidestepped a definitive judgment on the NRC’s authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. But it nodded strongly in the agency’s direction, citing precedent and legislative history that bolster the NRC’s interpretation.
The Biden administration had defended the NRC’s licensing decision, and the appeal process continued through the transition to the Trump presidency—making it one of the few legal sagas to transcend the usual partisan fractures.
A spokesperson for the NRC hailed the decision as validation. “The court’s ruling upholds the NRC license… and explains why the NRC has this authority,” the agency said.
But environmental questions linger. Critics argue that the site, although branded “temporary,” is authorized for 40 years with possible renewal—hardly a quick stopover for the nation’s radioactive leftovers. Meanwhile, a proposal to permanently house nuclear waste at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain remains politically deadlocked, after decades of opposition from Nevadans.
The ruling lands amid a broader shift in the high court’s approach to regulatory power. In recent years, the justices have clipped the wings of agencies like the EPA and SEC, and just last term, they overturned a foundational 1984 precedent that gave federal agencies wide latitude in interpreting the laws they enforce.
In this case, though, the agency in question lives to regulate another day—and the radioactive cargo, it seems, has found a temporary home in West Texas.
