Luke Burris reports that late Monday afternoon (April 23, 2018), the Supreme Court of the United States publicly posted its response to the potential use of the federal Atomic Energy Act to overturn Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining, recommending against the motion. In the docket, it was written that the states regulate uranium mining, “including by banning it altogether,” and the federal government “does not, has never, and indeed cannot regulate such mining.” However, the argument presented to the Supreme Court was that Virginia chose to enact the indefinite moratorium for improper reasons, for reasons beyond the scope of mining.
The Courts wrote that due to the age of the decision made over 30 years ago, clear motive to extend the moratorium would be a burden to conclude. “In our view, the relevant materials show that the Virginia legislature had a variety of concerns in mind when enacting the moratorium.” “Courts of appeals, of course, have no power to make factual findings.” “(Allowing) such a rule would permit virtually any preemption challenge to advance to discovery, subjecting the State and its officials to potentially intrusive inquiries about what motivated a state legislature to adopt a law regulating activities that are themselves entirely unregulated by the federal government. But the allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States.” According to the docket, nothing presented justified the necessity for intruding in state sovereignty.
“This case raises no issue of general or urgent importance. There is no need for the Court to wade into those matters because there is no need for the Court to take this case. Despite vague expressions of (economic) concerns, the government identifies no tangible harms caused by Virginia’s moratorium and no actual projects or activities that would be impeded were this Court simply to leave undisturbed the status quo that has prevailed since 1982. Better to let sleeping dogs lie.” Further, “it is for Congress to rethink the division of regulatory authority and the courts should not assume the role which our system assigns to Congress.
This is especially true given that Congress retains ample authority ‘to rethink the division of regulatory authority’ if it disagrees with Virginia’s longstanding policies about conventional uranium mining. But regardless, this Court has never invalidated a state law based on the preemption theory urged here. This case is a poor vehicle for addressing preemption under the AEA.”
“It bears repeating that Virginia’s moratorium on conventional uranium mining has been in place since President Reagan’s first term and went completely unchallenged until the end of the second Obama Administration. At worst, that sort of delay could give rise to a defense of laches or the like. But even at best, it badly undermines any claim about the urgency of this issue. This too undermines the federal government’s implicit contention that the ‘clear and manifest purpose of Congress’ was to displace Virginia’s exercise of its sovereign police power.”
In conclusion, “the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.”
Original URL: http://www.chathamstartribune.com/news/article_dfc3d458-474e-11e8-921c-03e4bfe5d799.html Now withdrawn?
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
