The U.S. Supreme Court recently dismissed a legal challenge brought by the State of Texas and a private entity against the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) authority to license a temporary storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in West Texas. In a 6-3 decision, the high court rejected the litigation on procedural grounds, effectively removing a significant legal hurdle for the commercial nuclear energy industry’s long-standing quest for waste management solutions, particularly in a state actively pursuing advanced nuclear power.

The ruling comes as Texas has committed substantial resources to fostering nuclear energy development. During its recent legislative session, the Texas Legislature allocated $350 million to create the Texas Advanced Nuclear Development Fund via House Bill 14, aligning with Governor Greg Abbott’s ambition for Texas to become a global leader in advanced nuclear power. However, this proactive stance on nuclear generation has been juxtaposed with the state’s opposition to a crucial aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle: the storage of radioactive waste.

Texas and Fasken Land and Minerals Ltd., a West Texas business, initiated their lawsuit in 2021 after the NRC licensed Waste Control Specialists to operate a temporary storage facility for up to 11 million pounds of spent uranium fuel at its Permian Basin site, which currently handles low-level nuclear waste. After Texas initially prevailed before a federal judicial panel in 2023, the NRC appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s review primarily focused on two questions: whether a non-party can challenge a federal agency’s final order under the Hobbs Act, and if federal laws, specifically the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, permit the NRC to license private entities for temporary off-site spent nuclear fuel storage.

The Supreme Court ultimately sidestepped the substantive question of the NRC’s licensing authority, instead dismissing the case on procedural grounds related to the Hobbs Act. The court found that Texas and Fasken failed to qualify as “parties aggrieved” because they did not actively participate in the NRC’s licensing proceeding beyond submitting comments. This procedural dismissal, while not a definitive endorsement of the NRC’s authority, averts a major setback for the nuclear industry, which has grappled with long-term waste storage solutions for decades.

From a strategic standpoint, this legal “loss” for Texas may prove to be a long-term win. The state’s broad goals of incentivizing new nuclear technology and power plant construction could be undermined by a contradictory stance that supports electricity generation but obstructs waste storage. Advocating for nuclear power while simultaneously blocking necessary waste disposal is akin to promoting combustion engines without permitting motor oil disposal.

Spent nuclear fuel, containing elements radioactive for centuries, demands rigorous management to prevent environmental harm. However, the industry operates under stringent federal regulations and intense public scrutiny, ensuring far greater environmental care than many other industrial byproducts, such as fracking water or non-biodegradable synthetic materials. As small modular reactors (SMRs) offer a viable path for nuclear energy expansion in Texas and the U.S., managing financial risk and ensuring safe, responsible, and sustainable spent fuel storage remain paramount. State leaders must approach this challenge with serious forethought and scientific backing, rather than through contradictory litigation.