Virginia Uranium v. Warren

U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 17, 2019 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)

Decided
June 17, 2019
Docket
No. 16-1275
Argued
November 5, 2018
Term
October Term 2018
Vote
6–3
Majority author
Justice Gorsuch
Issue area
Federalism
Disposition
Affirmed
Outcome
Petitioning party lost
Ideological direction
Conservative

How the Justices voted

Majority
Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch (wrote), Justice Kavanaugh
Concurring in the judgment
Justice Ginsburg (wrote), Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan
Dissenting
Chief Justice Roberts (wrote), Justice Breyer, Justice Alito

Oral argument transcript and advocates

Opinion excerpt

C If the AEA doesn't occupy the field of radiation safety in uranium mining, Virginia Uranium suggests the statute still displaces state law through what's sometimes called conflict preemption. In particular, the company suggests, Virginia's mining law stands as an impermissible "obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Hines v. Davidowitz , 312 U. S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941). On Virginia Uranium's account, Congress sought to capture the benefits of developing nuclear power while mitigating its safety and environmental costs. And, the company contends, Virginia's moratorium disrupts the delicate "balance" Congress sought to achieve between these benefits and costs. Maybe the text of the AEA doesn't touch on mining in so many words, but its authority to regulate later stages of the nuclear fuel life cycle would be effectively undermined if mining laws like Virginia's were allowed. A sound preemption analysis cannot be as simplistic as that. No more than in field preemption can the Supremacy Clause be deployed here to elevate abstract and unenacted legislative desires above state law; only federal laws "made in pursuance of" the Constitution, through its prescribed processes of bicameralism and presentment, are entitled to preemptive effect. Art. VI, cl. 2; ISLA Petroleum , 485 U. S. at 503, 108 S.Ct. 1350.…

Excerpt of a 49,691-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.

← Back to the decisions database