Supreme Court Upholds Virginia’s Uranium Mining Ban

In an unanticipated plot twist, the Supreme Court’s most liberal and conservative Justices joined together and upheld a decades-old Virginia law banning uranium mining, and did so over the objection of the Trump Justice Department and three other Justices who now occupy the ideological center of the Court. The case turned on whether the Federal Atomic Energy Act, which regulates the development of uranium to be used in nuclear power plants, “pre-empted” the state law mining ban because the state law was, in essence, a ban of uranium development and therefore the federal law should govern as is the case in any direct conflict between state and federal laws.

Why This Matters:  For decades, “states’ rights” have been the rallying cry of conservatives in politics and on the Supreme Court because often state laws were more conservative and pro-business and less protective of worker’s rights and the environment.  Ironically, just as the Supreme Court is poised for a long era of conservative opinions given the Trump appointees, this states’ rights philosophy may come back around on them.  Increasingly, state and local governments are taking actions and passing laws that are more protective of the environment than federal rules and laws. Cases like this one will test whether the Trump Justices will alter their prior philosophical views and court precedents to overturn state laws in order to reach the more pro-business result.  Next year the Court will decide a similar case in which the state of Montana passed a law that would clean up a notorious toxic waste site to a higher standard than the federal Environmental Protection Agency is requiring.  This could get interesting.

Pre-emption Based on Implied Legislative Intent Lost Out.

In case you were wondering who was on the “winning” side, Justice Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion for himself and Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh upholding the traditionally conservative “states rights” position, and liberal Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor agreed with the result but Justice Ginsburg wrote a separate opinion.  Justices Breyer, Roberts and Alito argued that the state’s intent to ban nuclear power development was clear enough — and the impact of the state law, whether clearly intended or not, pre-empts a federal law.

  • The super smart lawyers at SCOTUS blog thought the conservative Justices dodged the toughest question presented in the case — “What is the proper role for state legislative purpose in a pre-emption analysis?”
  • SCOTUS blog explains that “[t]he Gorsuch opinion stated that state legislative purpose has no place in pre-emption analyses, whereas the Ginsburg opinion expressed discomfort at such a hard-line stance.
  • Gorsuch reasoned that if courts started to “read between the lines” of state statutes to infer intent it would incentivize state legislatures to “resort to secrecy and subterfuge” rather than openly explain their true purpose for passing a law that is governing an area in which there is also federal law.
  • Ginsburg, on the other hand, “rejected the argument that Virginia’s ban was a pretext for regulating the radiological safety of milling and tailings management, even though the ban makes it very unlikely that such activities will take place within the state’s borders.”

To Go Deeper: You can read the Court’s opinions here.

Up Next

Regenerative Farming Up Close: Our Daily Planet’s Field Trip to Clagett Farm

Regenerative Farming Up Close: Our Daily Planet’s Field Trip to Clagett Farm

Last week we got a chance to visit Clagett Farm, one of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s working farms that supports the development of sustainable agriculture practices. The farm raises vegetables, fruits, beef cattle, and sheep and supports a Community Supported Agriculture program as well as a tree farm. We write a lot about farming and […]

Continue Reading 643 words
Trump Outdoor Recreation Advisory Committee Recommends Privatizing Campgrounds

Trump Outdoor Recreation Advisory Committee Recommends Privatizing Campgrounds

The Hill reports that an advisory committee recommended to Interior Secretary David Bernhardt that he should privatize campgrounds within national parks, cut benefits for senior visitors, and allow food trucks into Parks as a way to bring increase money coming into the Parks system, according to the panel’s memo.

Why This Matters:  This recommendation is likely to be extremely divisive — with environmental groups and advocates for seniors arguing that this is likely to hurt low and middle-income Americans and benefit the President’s rich benefactors. 

 

Continue Reading 429 words
Dry Farming, an Ancient Practice, Helps Farmers Adapt to Climate Change

Dry Farming, an Ancient Practice, Helps Farmers Adapt to Climate Change

As climate change continues to alter rainfall and water sources for farmers across the country, some farmers are turning to an ancient farming technique called dry farming to help cope with the changes. As Oregon Public Radio reported, dry farming relies on the moisture that’s stored in the soil from winter rainwater. It’s successful in […]

Continue Reading 448 words