Dissenting Justices Find Supreme Court Decision Undermines Nuclear Waste Safety and State Rights
On June 18, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to uphold a lower court’s decision that blocked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from licensing a private nuclear waste storage facility in Texas. In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Gorsuch—joined by Justices Thomas and Alito—laid out why the NRC’s actions are both unlawful and dangerous.
Here’s what you need to know:
The Background
Congress was clear: The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) says spent nuclear fuel may only be stored at two types of sites: at the reactors where it was used, or on federally owned land.
The NRC ignored that: It granted a 40-year license (renewable) to a private company—Interim Storage Partners (ISP)—to store up to 40,000 metric tons of nuclear waste in Andrews County, Texas.
Location matters: This site is in the Permian Basin—the world’s largest oil-producing region—and sits near critical aquifers and far from any nuclear reactor.
The Legal Issue
Texas and nearby landowner Fasken Land and Minerals challenged the license, arguing that:
The NRC has no authority under the NWPA to approve private offsite storage.
The risks to people, land, water, and the region’s economy are too high.
The NRC blocked both Texas and Fasken from fully participating in the licensing process, then used that exclusion to say they couldn’t sue.
Justice Gorsuch’s Take: “Unlawful, Unsafe, and Unjust”
In a powerful dissent, Gorsuch made several critical points:
Congress already spoke: The NRC cannot override federal law with outdated regulations or creative reinterpretations of older statutes.
No authority = no license: Agencies can’t make up power where Congress has explicitly denied it.
You don’t need a secret handshake to object: Texas and Fasken took part in the NRC’s process and should have the right to challenge the decision in court.
Fox guarding the henhouse: Allowing the NRC to decide who qualifies to challenge it effectively shuts down accountability.
Why This Matters
It sets a dangerous precedent: If private companies can store nuclear waste without federal oversight or consent from the communities involved, it threatens public safety and environmental integrity nationwide.
It guts the consent principle: The people and states impacted by nuclear waste transport and storage deserve a say. This ruling says otherwise.
It could last forever: “Interim” storage is a misnomer—without a permanent solution like Yucca Mountain, these sites could become de facto permanent dumps.
Our Take
This isn’t about being anti-nuclear. It’s about being pro-responsibility.
At ARNW, we believe:
Nuclear waste must be managed transparently, legally, and with full public input.
Long-term decisions shouldn’t be made behind closed doors or under regulatory loopholes.
States and landowners must have the power to protect their people and natural resources.
What’s Next?
Despite the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene, the fight isn’t over. ARNW will continue to:
Educate the public on nuclear waste risks and realities.
Advocate for responsible, lawful solutions that prioritize safety and consent.
Oppose the transportation of high-level nuclear waste through communities without proper oversight.
📬 Join us to stand for common-sense solutions and a future that doesn’t gamble with radioactive waste.
🔗 Learn More | 📢 Get Involved | ✍️ Add Your Voice