Case No. 16-1275 | 4th Cir.
Preview by Lindsey A. Ricchi
The issue before the Court is “[w]hether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 [“AEA”] preempts Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining.” Brief in Opposition at i, Va. Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, No. 16-1275 (U.S. filed Aug. 2, 2017).
In the late 1970s, significant uranium deposits were discovered throughout Virginia. In 1982, the Virginia General Assembly enacted a law establishing a uranium mining moratorium, which was extended indefinitely in 1983. Id. at 9–11. The petitioners, Virginia Uranium, Inc., et al, challenge this law as being preempted by the AEA.
The district court held that “the preempted field did not include conventional uranium mining on private land,” and that Virginia is thus “‘the paramount proprietor[] over its mineral lands.’” Brief for Respondents at 14, Va. Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, No. 16-1275 (U.S. filed Aug. 27, 2018) (quoting Va. Uranium, Inc. v. McAuliffe, 147 F.Supp.3d 462, 470 (W.D. Va. Dec. 2, 2015)). The Fourth Circuit affirmed. See Va. Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 848 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 2017).
The petitioners argue that the AEA provides that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) alone may regulate activities “for the protection of the public health and safety from radiation hazards.” Brief for Petitioners at 2, Va. Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, No. 16-1275 (U.S. filed July 19, 2018) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2021(b), (k) (2018)). The petitioners further assert that the Court must consider the state’s motivation for enacting the state law and whether the state’s rationale “falls squarely within the prohibited field.” Id. (quoting Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, 461 U.S. 190, 212–13 (1983)). The petitioners argue that because the respondents concede that the Virginia law seeks to protect against the radiological hazards of uranium milling, the state statute falls within the AEA’s field of preemption. Thus, the petitioners argue, the AEA preempts the Virginia statute, and its prohibition on uranium mining cannot stand.
The respondents, Warren, et al, argue that the Virginia law addresses “whether the uranium will be mined in the first place,” not what happens after the uranium is removed, which is what the AEA and NRC regulate. Brief for Respondents at 1, Va. Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, No. 16-1275 (U.S. filed Aug. 27, 2018) (emphasis omitted). The respondents further argue that if the Court considers the state legislators’ motives for enacting a statute when determining whether the federal law preempts the state law, it could lead to inconsistent results regarding identical statutes in other states. See id. at 2 (citing Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 404 (2010)). Finally, the respondents deny having ever conceded that radiological safety concerns underpin the state’s rationale for enacting the statute. Thus, the respondents argue, the state law lies outside the AEA’s field of preemption, and the state law prohibiting uranium mining should stand.
The Court’s decision will likely clarify the regulatory scope of the Atomic Energy Act with respect to uranium operations on private lands. In addition, given the respondents’ invocation of Shady Grove, the Court’s decision may contribute to the ever-evolving Erie Doctrine.