Supreme Court rejects Texas’ challenge to nuclear waste storage

In a significant ruling that reinforces the authority of the federal government in nuclear waste oversight, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that Texas and a private landowner group lacked the legal standing to challenge a federal license for storing spent nuclear fuel in Andrews County.

In a 6–3 decision, the Court sided with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), effectively ending a long-running legal battle over whether Texas could block the federal government’s approval of an interim storage facility operated by Interim Storage Partners.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Texas and Fasken had ample opportunity to present their views on the proposed storage site to the Commission. They did so,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But having not secured intervention, they were not parties to the licensing proceeding — and therefore cannot obtain judicial review of the licensing decision in this litigation.”

The Backstory

At the heart of the dispute is a plan to store high-level radioactive waste—specifically, spent nuclear fuel—at a facility in West Texas. Although the facility already handles low-level waste, the proposal to expand storage to include spent fuel sparked opposition from state leaders and some local stakeholders.

In late 2023, just as the NRC was preparing to issue the license, the Texas Legislature passed a law banning the storage of spent nuclear fuel anywhere in the state unless it was located at or near an active nuclear reactor. Governor Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to fast-track the measure.

Despite this last-minute law, the NRC proceeded to approve the license. Texas, joined by Fasken Land and Minerals Ltd.—which owns land near the proposed site—then sued the NRC, claiming the federal license violated state law.

In August 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Texas, arguing the NRC lacked statutory authority to approve private storage facilities away from reactors. But the NRC appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to take the case.

High Court Sidesteps the Big Question

Though the core of the case revolved around the question of federal versus state authority in nuclear waste management, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on that issue. Instead, it ruled on narrower procedural grounds: Texas and Fasken were not official parties to the licensing process and therefore had no legal right—known as “standing”—to seek judicial review.

“We need not and do not decide the ultimate question of statutory authority that the dissent focuses on,” Kavanaugh emphasized, clarifying that the Court’s decision was based solely on the plaintiffs’ failure to meet procedural requirements.

A Sharp Dissent

The Court’s conservative wing—Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito—strongly disagreed. In a pointed dissent, they argued that both Texas and Fasken had legitimate grievances stemming from the NRC’s decision and should have been allowed to challenge it in court.

“Radioactive waste poses risks to the State, its citizens, its lands, air, and waters,” the dissent stated. “Both Texas and Fasken participated actively in the NRC’s licensing proceeding. No more is required.”

What This Means Going Forward

While the Supreme Court didn’t resolve the larger debate over whether states can block nuclear waste storage within their borders, the decision affirms the strength of federal regulatory authority—at least procedurally.

The ruling also sets a precedent for how parties must participate in federal administrative proceedings if they hope to challenge them later in court. Simply voicing opposition or submitting comments, as Texas and Fasken did, is not enough.

The case has now been remanded to lower courts with instructions to align their rulings with the Supreme Court’s decision.

Local Reactions

In Andrews County, where the proposed facility is located, reactions were mixed. While some local leaders have long opposed the storage site, citing safety and environmental concerns, others have welcomed the economic boost the facility could bring to the rural area.

Governor Abbott’s office has not yet issued a formal response, but lawmakers who backed the 2023 state ban signaled their frustration with the ruling.

Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s decision does not settle whether the federal government can force states to host nuclear waste. But for now, it gives the green light for the Andrews County facility to proceed—and sets a reminder to state and local governments: if you want to challenge a federal license, you must first become a party to the process.