Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE of Texas; Greg Abbott, Governor of the State of Texas; Texas Commission On Environmental Quality; Fasken Land and Minerals, Limited; Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners, Petitioners, v. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; United States of America, Respondents.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Texas state officials concluded that a proposed renewable Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license allowing a private entity to store nuclear waste in the Permian Basin would not only violate federal law, but also wreak environmental havoc in West Texas and endanger the nation's energy security. Governor Greg Abbott warned that an accident or act of terrorism could affect the entire country's energy supply. See, e.g., NRC v. Texas, 605 U.S. 665, 145 S. Ct. 1762, 1783, 222 L.Ed.2d 260 (2025) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting). A number of officials and private parties also expressed concerns about environmental contamination and harm to endangered species. See, e.g., id. at 1771 (majority opinion); id. at 1783 (Gorsuch, J., dissenting). So the State of Texas challenged the NRC's issuance of the license.
Our court faithfully applied circuit precedent allowing states to bring suits under the Hobbs Act when an agency acts ultra vires. See Texas v. NRC, 78 F.4th 827, 839 (5th Cir. 2023) (citing American Trucking Ass'n, Inc. v. ICC, 673 F.2d 82, 85 n.4 (5th Cir. 1982)). See also Texas v. NRC, 95 F.4th 935, 944 (5th Cir. 2024) (Higginson, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (acknowledging “our court's ultra vires exception” and urging rehearing en banc to reconsider that exception).
The Supreme Court reversed our judgment. It held that ultra vires review is unavailable if a “statutory review scheme provides aggrieved persons with a meaningful and adequate opportunity for judicial review” or where an “alternative path to judicial review” exists. NRC, 145 S. Ct. at 1776 (citation omitted). The Court concluded that we lack jurisdiction to consider the petition for review in this case.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review, as required by the Supreme Court.
Per Curiam:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 21-60743
Decided: September 22, 2025
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)