In Re: Aiken County
406 U.S. App. D.C. 382
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires NRC to consider DOE's Yucca Mountain license and issue a final decision within three years, with a one-year extension possible for a written delay explanation.
- DOE submitted the Yucca Mountain license application in June 2008; Congress continued to appropriate funds for the process through at least FY2011, with NRC having at least $11.1 million available.
- The NRC has not issued the required license decision and has reportedly no current plan to comply, effectively shutting down the licensing process.
- Petitioners (States of South Carolina and Washington and related entities) seek a writ of mandamus to force NRC to proceed under the statutory mandate.
- A prior panel indicated mandamus likely would be appropriate if the NRC failed to act, but Congress had not clarified the law, leading to continued inaction by the NRC.
- The majority grants the writ, holding NRC’s inaction violates the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and cannot be justified by policy disagreements or speculative future appropriations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NRC's inaction violate the Nuclear Waste Policy Act? | Petitioners argue NRC failed to comply with statutory deadlines. | NRC contends funding or future appropriations could justify delay. | Yes; inaction violates the Act. |
| Can the President or independent agencies disregard statutory mandates on constitutional grounds alone? | NRC could defer if unconstitutional per Article II. | Executive may assess constitutionality and decline to follow statutes when unconstitutional. | No; no constitutionality found to justify the inaction here. |
| Does prosecutorial discretion authorize noncompliance with non-prosecutorial statutory mandates? | Prosecutorial discretion could excuse non-enforcement or non-implementation of laws. | Discretion applies to prosecuting violators, not to noncompliance with statutory mandatories. | No; prosecutorial discretion does not justify ignoring statutory mandates. |
| May budgetary constraints or future appropriations excuse noncompliance with a clear statutory duty? | Congress’s past and future funding could justify delaying proceedings. | Uncertain future funding cannot override statutory obligation. | No; cannot excuse the duty, when funds are available or can be allocated. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Aiken County, 645 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (mandamus likely if agency fails to act under statutory deadlines)
- City of Los Angeles v. Adams, 556 F.2d 40 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (funding constraints do not automatically suspend statutory schemes)
- TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1978) (reliance on appropriations cannot suspend prior authorizing legislation)
- Nixon v. Admin. of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425 (U.S. 1977) (final authority on constitutionality rests with courts)
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1952) (separation of powers limits presidential action against statutory commands)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1985) (prosecutorial discretion governs agency action decisions)
- Barr Labs., Inc., 930 F.2d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (mandamus considerations and agency priorities)