Court clears the way for temporary
nuclear waste storage in Texas and New Mexico
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday restarted plans to temporarily store nuclear waste at sites in rural Texas and New Mexico, even as the nation is at an impasse over a permanent solution.
The justices, by a 6-3 vote, reversed a federal appeals court ruling that invalidated the license granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to a private company for the facility in southwest Texas. The outcome should also reinvigorate plans for a similar facility in New Mexico roughly 40 miles away.
The federal appeals court in New Orleans had ruled in favor of the opponents of the facilities.
The licenses would allow the companies to operate the facilities for 40 years, with the possibility of a 40-year renewal.
The court's decision is not a final ruling in favor of the licenses, but it removes a major roadblock. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's majority opinion focused on technical procedural rules in concluding that Texas and a major landowner in southwest Texas forfeited their right to challenge the NRC licensing decision in federal court.
The justices did not rule on a more substantive issue: whether federal law allows the commission to license temporary storage sites. But Kavanaugh wrote that "history and precedent offer significant support for the commission's longstanding interpretation" that it can do so.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in dissent that the NRC's "decision was unlawful" because spent nuclear fuel can be temporarily stored in only two places under federal law, at a nuclear reactor or at a federally owned facility. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas signed on to the dissenting opinion.
Roughly 100,000 tons (90,000 metric tons) of spent fuel, some of it dating from the 1980s, is piling up at current and former nuclear plant sites nationwide and growing by more than 2,000 tons a year. The waste was meant to be kept there temporarily before being deposited deep underground.
The NRC has said that the temporary storage sites are needed because existing nuclear plants are running out of room. The presence of the spent fuel also complicates plans to decommission some plants, the Justice Department said in court papers.
Plans for a permanent underground storage facility at Yucca Mountain, northwest of Las Vegas, are stalled because of staunch opposition from most Nevada residents and officials.
The NRC's appeal was filed by the Biden administration and maintained by the Trump administration. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, are leading bipartisan opposition to the facilities in their states.
Lujan Grisham said she was deeply disappointed by the court's ruling, reiterating that Holtec International, awarded the license for the New Mexico facility, wasn't welcome in the state. She vowed to do everything possible to prevent the company, based in Jupiter, Florida, from storing what she called "dangerous" waste in New Mexico.
"Congress has repeatedly failed to secure a permanent location for disposing of nuclear waste, and now the federal government is trying to force de-facto permanent storage facilities onto New Mexico and Texas," she said. "It is a dangerous and irresponsible approach."
The NRC granted the Texas license to Interim Storage Partners, based in Andrews, Texas, for a facility that could take up to 5,500 tons (5,000 metric tons) of spent nuclear fuel rods from power plants and 231 million tons (210 million metric tons) of other radioactive waste. The facility would be built next to an existing dump site in Andrews County for low-level waste such as protective clothing and other material that has been exposed to radioactivity. The Andrews County site is about 350 miles (560 kilometers) west of Dallas, near the Texas-New Mexico state line.
The New Mexico facility would be in Lea County, in the southeastern part of the state near Carlsbad.
___
Associated Press writer Susan Montoya Bryan contributed to this report from Albuquerque, N.M.
Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care
for kids upheld, a setback for transgender rights
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors, a jolting setback to transgender rights.
The justices' 6-3 decision in a case from Tennessee effectively protects from legal challenges many efforts by President Donald Trump's Republican administration and state governments to roll back protections for transgender people. Another 26 states have laws similar to Tennessee's.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a conservative majority that the law banning puberty blockers and hormone treatments for trans minors doesn't violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same.
"This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound," Roberts wrote. "The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best."
In a dissent for the court's three liberal justices that she summarized aloud in the courtroom, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, "By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent."
The law also limits parents' decision-making ability for their children's health care, she wrote.
The decision comes amid other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports.
The Republican president also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming medical care for those under age 19 — instead promoting talk therapy only to treat young transgender people. And the Supreme Court has allowed him to kick transgender service members out of the military, even as court fights continue. The president signed another order to define the sexes as only male and female.
The debate even spilled into Congress when Delaware elected Democrat Sarah McBride as the first transgender member of the House. Her election prompted immediate opposition among Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana and Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, over which bathroom McBride could use.
Several states where gender-affirming care remains in place have adopted laws or state executive orders seeking to protect it. But since Trump's executive order, some providers have ceased some treatments. For instance, Penn Medicine in Philadelphia announced last month it wouldn't provide surgeries for patients under 19.
The president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Susan Kressly, said the organization is "unwavering" in its support of gender-affirming care and "stands with pediatricians and families making health care decisions together and free from political interference."
Five years ago, the Supreme Court ruled LGBTQ people are protected by a landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. That decision is unaffected by Wednesday's ruling.
But the justices declined to apply the same sort of analysis the court used in 2020 when it found "sex plays an unmistakable role" in employers' decisions to punish transgender people for traits and behavior they otherwise tolerate. Roberts joined that opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was part of Wednesday's majority.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett also fully joined the majority but wrote separately to emphasize that laws classifying people based on transgender status should not receive any special review by courts. Barrett, also writing for justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that "courts must give legislatures flexibility to make policy in this area."
Chase Strangio, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who argued the case for transgender minors and their families, called the ruling "a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution."
Mo Jenkins, a 26-year-old trans woman who began taking hormone therapy at 16, said she was disheartened but not surprised by the ruling. "Trans people are not going to disappear," said Jenkins, a Texas native and legislative staffer at the state capitol in Austin. Texas outlawed puberty blockers and hormone treatment for minors in 2023.
Tennessee's leading Republican elected officials all praised the outcome. Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti on social media called the ruling a "Landmark VICTORY for Tennessee at SCOTUS in defense of America's children!"
There are about 300,000 people between the ages of 13 and 17 and 1.3 million adults who identify as transgender in the U.S., according to the Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law that researches sexual orientation and gender identity demographics.
When the case was argued in December, then-President Joe Biden's Democratic administration and families of transgender adolescents called on the high court to strike down the Tennessee ban as unlawful sex discrimination and to protect the constitutional rights of vulnerable Americans.
They argued the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment in part because the same treatments that the law prohibits for transgender minors can be used for other purposes.
Soon after Trump took office, the Justice Department told the court its position had changed.
A major issue in the case was the appropriate level of scrutiny courts should apply to such laws.
The lowest level is known as rational basis review, and almost every law looked at that way is upheld. Indeed, the federal appeals court in Cincinnati that allowed the Tennessee law to be enforced held that lawmakers acted rationally to regulate medical procedures.
The appeals court reversed a trial court that employed a higher level of review, heightened scrutiny, which applies in cases of sex discrimination. Under this more searching examination, the state must identify an important objective and show the law helps accomplish it.
Roberts' 24-page majority opinion was devoted almost entirely to explaining why the Tennessee law, called SB1, should be evaluated under the lower standard of review. The law's restrictions on treating minors for gender dysphoria turn on age and medical use, not sex, Roberts wrote.
Doctors may prescribe puberty blockers and hormone therapy to minors of any sex to treat some disorders, but not those relating to transgender status, he wrote.
But in her courtroom statement, Sotomayor asserted that similar arguments were made to defend the Virginia law prohibiting interracial marriage that the Supreme Court struck down in 1967.
"A ban on interracial marriage could be described in the same way as the majority described SB1," she said.
Roberts rejected the comparison.
___
Associated Press writers Geoff Mulvihill, in Cherry Hill, N.J., and Nadia Lathan in Austin, Texas, contributed to this report.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
