Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren
587 U.S. ____ (2019) (2019)
Rule of Law:
A state law that regulates an activity squarely within the state's traditional authority and outside the textual scope of a federal statute is not preempted, even if the state's legislative purpose was to prevent consequences in a federally regulated field.
Facts:
- In the late 1970s, a large deposit of uranium ore, the nation's largest, was discovered under private land known as Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County, Virginia.
- A private company, Virginia Uranium, Inc. (and its predecessors), acquired the mineral rights to this deposit.
- Following the discovery, the Virginia General Assembly directed a state commission to study the environmental and public health effects of uranium mining and milling.
- In 1982, the Virginia General Assembly imposed a temporary moratorium on uranium mining to allow for the development of protective regulations.
- The following year, the Assembly extended the ban indefinitely, providing that it would remain in effect until a state program for permitting uranium mining is established by statute.
- Virginia has not established such a permitting program, so the ban on uranium mining remains in force, preventing Virginia Uranium, Inc. from developing the Coles Hill deposit.
Procedural Posture:
- Virginia Uranium, Inc. sued officials of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.
- The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that Virginia's uranium mining ban is preempted by the Atomic Energy Act and an injunction against its enforcement.
- The Commonwealth defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the state law was not preempted.
- Virginia Uranium, Inc., as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Virginia Uranium's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 federal Atomic Energy Act preempt a Virginia state law that bans conventional uranium mining on private land?
Opinions:
Plurality - Gorsuch, J.
No. The Atomic Energy Act (AEA) does not preempt Virginia's law banning uranium mining because the federal statute, by its text, only regulates activities that occur after uranium is removed from the ground. Preemption analysis must be grounded in the text and structure of the federal statute, not in speculative inquiries into unenacted congressional purposes or the motives of the state legislature. The AEA's plain language gives the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) authority over uranium milling and the disposal of radioactive waste (tailings), but it explicitly leaves the regulation of conventional mining on private land to the states. To find preemption based on a state's supposed 'bad' motive would require the Court to displace a legitimate state law based on a judicially-created purpose that lacks the democratic provenance required by the Constitution.
Concurring - Ginsburg, J.
No. The Commonwealth's mining ban is not preempted by the Atomic Energy Act. While disagreeing with the lead opinion's broad rejection of purpose-based preemption analysis, the ban survives under existing doctrine. The AEA preempts state laws enacted for radiological safety purposes only when those laws regulate activities that are also federally regulated. Here, Virginia's law regulates conventional uranium mining, an 'upstream' activity that the federal government does not regulate. Therefore, the law is not preempted, regardless of Virginia's motives, because it does not intrude on the federally occupied field of regulating 'downstream' activities like milling and tailings disposal.
Dissenting - Roberts, C.J.
Yes. The Virginia mining ban should be preempted because it is a pretext for regulating radiological safety, a field exclusively occupied by the federal government under the AEA. The Court's precedent, particularly Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., requires an inquiry into the state's legislative purpose. If a state law, though facially regulating a non-preempted field (mining), is actually grounded in safety concerns about a preempted field (milling and tailings), it is preempted. By refusing to examine Virginia's clear purpose, the majority allows states to subvert federal authority through clever legislative drafting, creating a roadmap for any state to veto federal policy on nuclear energy.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts the scope of federal preemption, particularly the 'obstacle' and 'field' preemption doctrines, by strongly favoring a textualist approach over inquiries into legislative purpose. The lead opinion by Justice Gorsuch signals a potential shift away from the purpose-based analysis employed in prior preemption cases like Pacific Gas, which could make it more difficult to challenge state laws that indirectly affect federal regulatory schemes. The fractured nature of the opinions, however, leaves the state of preemption doctrine unsettled, creating uncertainty for lower courts regarding when it is appropriate to inquire into state legislative motives.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren (2019)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"