In Re: Aiken County
406 U.S. App. D.C. 382, 43 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20190, 725 F.3d 255 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An executive or independent agency cannot refuse to carry out a clear statutory mandate based on policy disagreements, speculation about future congressional appropriations, or a lack of full funding to complete the entire project, so long as some appropriated funds are available to continue the mandated task.
Facts:
- In 1983, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which mandated that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) consider and issue a final decision on a license application for a nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain.
- The statute set a deadline for the NRC to approve or disapprove the application within three years of its submission, with a possible one-year extension.
- In June 2008, the Department of Energy submitted its license application for the Yucca Mountain site to the NRC.
- Congress appropriated funds for the NRC to conduct the licensing process, and at the time of the dispute, the NRC had at least $11.1 million in available, previously appropriated funds for this purpose.
- Despite the statutory deadline having long since passed and having available funds, the NRC halted its review and consideration of the license application.
- Petitioners, including the States of South Carolina and Washington, have nuclear waste stored within their borders that would be moved to a long-term storage site like Yucca Mountain.
Procedural Posture:
- The States of South Carolina and Washington, among other petitioners, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to compel the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to resume processing the Yucca Mountain license application.
- In a 2011 decision involving a similar petition, a prior panel of the same court indicated that mandamus would likely be appropriate if the Commission continued to fail to act.
- In 2012, after the current petition was filed, the D.C. Circuit panel issued an order holding the case in abeyance to allow Congress time to clarify its intentions regarding future funding for the Yucca Mountain project.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's refusal to continue processing the Yucca Mountain license application, despite a clear statutory mandate in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the availability of some appropriated funds, justify a writ of mandamus compelling it to act?
Opinions:
Majority - Kavanaugh, J.
Yes. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is unlawfully violating a clear statutory mandate under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and has no legal basis for its inaction. The Commission's justifications are unpersuasive: 1) an agency cannot ignore a statutory mandate simply because Congress has not yet appropriated all funds necessary for completion; it must use available funds to effectuate the scheme as much as possible. 2) Speculating about future congressional appropriations is political guesswork and not a lawful basis for violating an existing legal mandate, as it would gravely upset the separation of powers. 3) Low or zero recent appropriations do not implicitly repeal a statutory command; Congress speaks through enacted laws, not funding levels. 4) Policy disagreement with Congress is not a lawful ground for an agency to decline to execute a statutory mandate. Furthermore, neither the President's Article II authority to disregard unconstitutional statutes nor the power of prosecutorial discretion applies here, as the Commission has not claimed the law is unconstitutional and this case involves a failure to follow a statutory duty, not a decision to decline enforcement against a private party.
Dissenting - Garland, C.J.
No. Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has missed a statutory deadline, issuing the extraordinary writ of mandamus is a discretionary act, and a court should not issue the writ to compel 'a useless thing.' The Commission suspended the application process because the remaining $11 million in funds is wholly insufficient to make meaningful progress, as demonstrated by previous annual budget requests of nearly $100 million. Forcing the agency to act would require it to spend a significant portion of the remaining funds to restart the program—unpacking materials and reassigning personnel—only to then spend the rest of the funds on shutting it down again once the money runs out. This futile exercise does nothing to safeguard the separation of powers and is not a proper use of the court's equitable power.
Concurring - Randolph, Sr. J.
Yes. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act required the Commission to rule on the Yucca Mountain application, and Congress appropriated funds for that purpose, creating a clear legal duty. The court's role is to enforce the law when enforcement is sought. The Commission's noncompliance was orchestrated by its former Chairman, who unilaterally ordered the termination of the review process in defiance of the law. The court's judgment correctly ensures that the Commission adheres to its statutory obligations. This opinion joins the majority in full, except for its extended discussion of Article II executive powers in Part III, which is unnecessary to decide the case.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the principle of executive and agency fidelity to statutory law, limiting an agency's ability to use funding arguments or policy disagreements as a de facto veto over congressional mandates. It clarifies that unless Congress repeals a law or explicitly defunds an activity, an agency must proceed with any available funds. The case serves as a significant check on agency discretion, reinforcing the separation of powers by ensuring that policy decisions enacted into law by the legislative branch are not undone by inaction in the executive branch.
