Washington
Supreme Court clears the way for temporary nuclear waste storage in Texas, New Mexico
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 (65 kilometers) 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.
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 (1,800 metric 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.
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 New Mexico facility would be in Lea County, in the southeastern part of the state near Carlsbad. The NRC gave a license for the site to Holtec International, based in Jupiter, Florida.
Massachusetts
Jury finds Karen Read not guilty of second-degree murder, guilty of drunk driving in boyfriend death
DEDHAM, Mass. (AP) — A jury found Karen Read not guilty of second-degree murder Wednesday in the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend but guilty but guilty of a lesser charge of drunk driving.
The jury handed down its decision after deliberating for at least 22 hours since June 13.
The verdict in the polarizing and highly watched case comes nearly a year after a separate jury deadlocked over Read’s involvement in the January 2022 death of John O’Keefe and resulted in a judge declaring a mistrial.
It’s a huge victory for Read’s lawyers, who have long asserted she was framed by police after dropping O’Keefe off at a party at the home of a fellow officer. Prosecutors argued the 45-year-old Read hit O’Keefe, 46, with her SUV before driving away, but the defense maintained O’Keefe was killed inside the home and later dragged outside.
Read faced charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter and leaving the scene outside Boston. A second-degree murder conviction would have carried a life sentence.
Much like during the first trial, attorneys spent months presenting their case, featuring hundreds of pieces of evidence and dozens of witnesses.
Read’s defense said O’Keefe was beaten, bitten by a dog, then left outside a home in the Boston suburb of Canton in a conspiracy orchestrated by the police that included planting evidence.
Prosecutors have described Read as a scorned lover who chose to leave O’Keefe dying in the snow after striking him with her SUV outside the house party.
It’s the state’s second attempt to convict Read. The first Read trial ended July 1 in a mistrial due to a hung jury.
The state’s case was led by special prosecutor Hank Brennan, who called fewer witnesses than prosecutor Adam Lally, who ran the first trial against Read.
Describing O’Keefe as a “good man” who “helped people,” Brennan told jurors during closing arguments that O’Keefe needed help that night and the only person who could provide it was Read. Instead, she drove away in her SUV.
“She was drunk. She hit him and she left him to die,” he said.
Defense attorney Alan Jackson rejected the idea that there was ever a collision at all. He and the defense called forward expert witnesses who agreed.
“There is no evidence that John was hit by a car. None. This case should be over right now, done, because there was no collision,” Jackson said during closing arguments.
Tennessee
Man formerly on death row can’t serve 2 life terms at the same time
MEMPHIS, Tenn., (AP) — A Tennessee judge did not have the authority to give Pervis Payne, who was formerly on death row, concurrent sentences of life in prison after ruling that he was intellectually disabled and could not be executed for two 1987 killings, the state Supreme Court said Monday.
The court’s ruling said a Memphis judge lacked the jurisdiction to give Payne two life sentences to run at the same time rather than one after the other. The concurrent sentences allowed Payne to be eligible for parole in 2026 — 30 years earlier than if the sentences were consecutive.
The Supreme Court did not issue the consecutive life sentences for Payne in its ruling. Instead, it returned the matter to the trial court in Memphis for further proceedings.
Payne had been on death row for the killings of a woman and her 2-year-old daughter. In January 2022, Judge Paula Skahan sentenced Payne to concurrent sentences of life with the possibility of parole after ruling in November 2021 that his death sentences must be vacated because he was intellectually disabled.
The case has drawn national attention from anti-death-penalty activists and included the involvement of the Innocence Project, which argues for the use of DNA testing in cases claiming wrongful conviction. DNA tests failed to exonerate Payne.
Skahan’s ruling that Payne should be removed from death row was based on a Tennessee law passed earlier in 2021 that made prohibiting the execution of intellectually disabled people retroactive to past cases. Before the 2021 law, Tennessee had no mechanism for people to reopen a case to press an intellectual disability claim.
Executions of intellectually disabled people were ruled unconstitutional in 2002, when the U.S. Supreme Court found they violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Payne, 58, was convicted of first-degree murder for the killings of Charisse Christopher and her 2-year-old daughter, Lacie Jo, who were repeatedly stabbed in their Millington apartment and left in a pool of blood. Christopher’s son, Nicholas, who was 3 at the time, also was stabbed but survived.
Payne, who is Black, has always maintained his innocence. He told police he was at Christopher’s apartment building to meet his girlfriend when he heard the mother, who was white, screaming and tried to help. He said he panicked when he saw a white police officer and ran away.
During his murder trial, prosecutors said Payne was high on cocaine and looking for sex when he killed Christopher and her daughter in a “drug-induced frenzy.” Prosecutors said the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to Payne as the killer.
However, evidence presented by two experts showed Payne was intellectually disabled, while Payne’s supporters said he had taken significant steps in his rehabilitation while serving three decades in prison.
It was not immediately clear Monday when Payne would be eligible for parole under the Supreme Court’s decision. A hearing must be set to address the new ruling.
Payne’s lawyer, Kelley Henry, has pushed for Payne’s full exoneration.
Massachusetts
Federal judge to deny Trump administration’s motion to dismiss lawsuit over block on wind projects
A federal judge in Massachusetts said Wednesday he plans to deny a motion by the Trump administration to dismiss a lawsuit over its blocking of wind energy projects, siding with a coalition of state attorneys general.
Led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, attorneys general from 17 states and Washington, D.C. are suing in federal court to challenge President Donald Trump’s Day One executive order halting leasing and permitting for wind energy projects.
Judge William G. Young said during a hearing that he plans to allow the case to proceed against Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, but will dismiss the action against Trump and cabinet secretaries other than Burgum named as defendants.
He said he thinks states do have standing to sue, which the federal government had argued against. The states can proceed with claims that blocking permits for wind energy projects violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which outlines a detailed process for enacting regulations, but not the Constitution, Young said.
Young said his rulings from the bench were tentative and reserved the right to alter them in writing his formal opinion.
The coalition of attorneys general sued to ask that a judge declare the executive order unlawful and approve an injunction to stop federal agencies from implementing it. They argued that Trump doesn’t have the authority to halt project permitting and doing so jeopardizes the states’ economies, energy mix, public health and climate goals.
The government is arguing that the states’ claims amount to nothing more than a policy disagreement over preferences for wind versus fossil fuel energy development that is outside the bounds of the federal court’s jurisdiction. Department of Justice Attorney Michael Robertson said in court that the wind order paused permitting, but didn’t halt it, while the Interior secretary reviews the environmental impact and that this effort is underway. He said states have not shown that they were harmed by a specific permit not being issued.
Turner Smith, from the Massachusetts attorney general’s office, countered that the government has provided no end date and that Trump’s order imposes a “categorical and indefinite halt.” She said states have been harmed and pointed to a offshore wind project for Massachusetts, now pushed back by two years because its three outstanding permits are delayed due to the wind order. She said Massachusetts can’t meet its targets for procuring offshore wind energy without the SouthCoast wind project.
Wind is the U.S.’ largest source of renewable energy, providing about 10% of the electricity generated in the nation, according to the American Clean Power Association.
Trump prioritizes fossil fuels and said last week that his administration would not approve wind energy projects except in cases of emergency. The administration had ordered a Norwegian company, Equinor, to halt construction on a fully permitted offshore wind project in New York, though Equinor has been allowed to resume work.
The coalition includes Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington state and Washington, D.C.
Supreme Court clears the way for temporary nuclear waste storage in Texas, New Mexico
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 (65 kilometers) 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.
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 (1,800 metric 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.
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 New Mexico facility would be in Lea County, in the southeastern part of the state near Carlsbad. The NRC gave a license for the site to Holtec International, based in Jupiter, Florida.
Massachusetts
Jury finds Karen Read not guilty of second-degree murder, guilty of drunk driving in boyfriend death
DEDHAM, Mass. (AP) — A jury found Karen Read not guilty of second-degree murder Wednesday in the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend but guilty but guilty of a lesser charge of drunk driving.
The jury handed down its decision after deliberating for at least 22 hours since June 13.
The verdict in the polarizing and highly watched case comes nearly a year after a separate jury deadlocked over Read’s involvement in the January 2022 death of John O’Keefe and resulted in a judge declaring a mistrial.
It’s a huge victory for Read’s lawyers, who have long asserted she was framed by police after dropping O’Keefe off at a party at the home of a fellow officer. Prosecutors argued the 45-year-old Read hit O’Keefe, 46, with her SUV before driving away, but the defense maintained O’Keefe was killed inside the home and later dragged outside.
Read faced charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter and leaving the scene outside Boston. A second-degree murder conviction would have carried a life sentence.
Much like during the first trial, attorneys spent months presenting their case, featuring hundreds of pieces of evidence and dozens of witnesses.
Read’s defense said O’Keefe was beaten, bitten by a dog, then left outside a home in the Boston suburb of Canton in a conspiracy orchestrated by the police that included planting evidence.
Prosecutors have described Read as a scorned lover who chose to leave O’Keefe dying in the snow after striking him with her SUV outside the house party.
It’s the state’s second attempt to convict Read. The first Read trial ended July 1 in a mistrial due to a hung jury.
The state’s case was led by special prosecutor Hank Brennan, who called fewer witnesses than prosecutor Adam Lally, who ran the first trial against Read.
Describing O’Keefe as a “good man” who “helped people,” Brennan told jurors during closing arguments that O’Keefe needed help that night and the only person who could provide it was Read. Instead, she drove away in her SUV.
“She was drunk. She hit him and she left him to die,” he said.
Defense attorney Alan Jackson rejected the idea that there was ever a collision at all. He and the defense called forward expert witnesses who agreed.
“There is no evidence that John was hit by a car. None. This case should be over right now, done, because there was no collision,” Jackson said during closing arguments.
Tennessee
Man formerly on death row can’t serve 2 life terms at the same time
MEMPHIS, Tenn., (AP) — A Tennessee judge did not have the authority to give Pervis Payne, who was formerly on death row, concurrent sentences of life in prison after ruling that he was intellectually disabled and could not be executed for two 1987 killings, the state Supreme Court said Monday.
The court’s ruling said a Memphis judge lacked the jurisdiction to give Payne two life sentences to run at the same time rather than one after the other. The concurrent sentences allowed Payne to be eligible for parole in 2026 — 30 years earlier than if the sentences were consecutive.
The Supreme Court did not issue the consecutive life sentences for Payne in its ruling. Instead, it returned the matter to the trial court in Memphis for further proceedings.
Payne had been on death row for the killings of a woman and her 2-year-old daughter. In January 2022, Judge Paula Skahan sentenced Payne to concurrent sentences of life with the possibility of parole after ruling in November 2021 that his death sentences must be vacated because he was intellectually disabled.
The case has drawn national attention from anti-death-penalty activists and included the involvement of the Innocence Project, which argues for the use of DNA testing in cases claiming wrongful conviction. DNA tests failed to exonerate Payne.
Skahan’s ruling that Payne should be removed from death row was based on a Tennessee law passed earlier in 2021 that made prohibiting the execution of intellectually disabled people retroactive to past cases. Before the 2021 law, Tennessee had no mechanism for people to reopen a case to press an intellectual disability claim.
Executions of intellectually disabled people were ruled unconstitutional in 2002, when the U.S. Supreme Court found they violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Payne, 58, was convicted of first-degree murder for the killings of Charisse Christopher and her 2-year-old daughter, Lacie Jo, who were repeatedly stabbed in their Millington apartment and left in a pool of blood. Christopher’s son, Nicholas, who was 3 at the time, also was stabbed but survived.
Payne, who is Black, has always maintained his innocence. He told police he was at Christopher’s apartment building to meet his girlfriend when he heard the mother, who was white, screaming and tried to help. He said he panicked when he saw a white police officer and ran away.
During his murder trial, prosecutors said Payne was high on cocaine and looking for sex when he killed Christopher and her daughter in a “drug-induced frenzy.” Prosecutors said the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to Payne as the killer.
However, evidence presented by two experts showed Payne was intellectually disabled, while Payne’s supporters said he had taken significant steps in his rehabilitation while serving three decades in prison.
It was not immediately clear Monday when Payne would be eligible for parole under the Supreme Court’s decision. A hearing must be set to address the new ruling.
Payne’s lawyer, Kelley Henry, has pushed for Payne’s full exoneration.
Massachusetts
Federal judge to deny Trump administration’s motion to dismiss lawsuit over block on wind projects
A federal judge in Massachusetts said Wednesday he plans to deny a motion by the Trump administration to dismiss a lawsuit over its blocking of wind energy projects, siding with a coalition of state attorneys general.
Led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, attorneys general from 17 states and Washington, D.C. are suing in federal court to challenge President Donald Trump’s Day One executive order halting leasing and permitting for wind energy projects.
Judge William G. Young said during a hearing that he plans to allow the case to proceed against Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, but will dismiss the action against Trump and cabinet secretaries other than Burgum named as defendants.
He said he thinks states do have standing to sue, which the federal government had argued against. The states can proceed with claims that blocking permits for wind energy projects violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which outlines a detailed process for enacting regulations, but not the Constitution, Young said.
Young said his rulings from the bench were tentative and reserved the right to alter them in writing his formal opinion.
The coalition of attorneys general sued to ask that a judge declare the executive order unlawful and approve an injunction to stop federal agencies from implementing it. They argued that Trump doesn’t have the authority to halt project permitting and doing so jeopardizes the states’ economies, energy mix, public health and climate goals.
The government is arguing that the states’ claims amount to nothing more than a policy disagreement over preferences for wind versus fossil fuel energy development that is outside the bounds of the federal court’s jurisdiction. Department of Justice Attorney Michael Robertson said in court that the wind order paused permitting, but didn’t halt it, while the Interior secretary reviews the environmental impact and that this effort is underway. He said states have not shown that they were harmed by a specific permit not being issued.
Turner Smith, from the Massachusetts attorney general’s office, countered that the government has provided no end date and that Trump’s order imposes a “categorical and indefinite halt.” She said states have been harmed and pointed to a offshore wind project for Massachusetts, now pushed back by two years because its three outstanding permits are delayed due to the wind order. She said Massachusetts can’t meet its targets for procuring offshore wind energy without the SouthCoast wind project.
Wind is the U.S.’ largest source of renewable energy, providing about 10% of the electricity generated in the nation, according to the American Clean Power Association.
Trump prioritizes fossil fuels and said last week that his administration would not approve wind energy projects except in cases of emergency. The administration had ordered a Norwegian company, Equinor, to halt construction on a fully permitted offshore wind project in New York, though Equinor has been allowed to resume work.
The coalition includes Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington state and Washington, D.C.
