NRC v. Texas, 605 U.S. 665

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) granted a license to Interim Storage Partners (ISP) to build and operate a private off-site facility in Texas for storing spent nuclear fuel.
Texas and Fasken Land and Minerals, a local business, opposed the project, raising environmental and statutory concerns. Fasken sought to intervene in the NRC's licensing proceeding; Texas submitted comments.
The NRC denied Fasken’s petition to intervene, a decision Fasken challenged unsuccessfully in the D.C. Circuit.
Both Texas and Fasken sought review of the NRC’s licensing decision in the Fifth Circuit, arguing the NRC lacked statutory authority for such a license, and the Fifth Circuit vacated ISP’s license.
On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether Texas and Fasken, not admitted as parties to the underlying NRC proceeding, could obtain judicial review of the licensing decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who has standing to judicially review NRC licenses?	Texas/Fasken: Participation via comments/intervention attempt made them parties.	NRC: Only license applicants or successful intervenors are parties under the statute.	Only applicants or successful intervenors are parties entitled to judicial review under the Hobbs Act.
Adequacy of intervention procedures under Atomic Energy Act	Fasken: NRC's regulations set too high a bar contrary to the statute and denied their rights.	NRC: Fasken received proper review in D.C. Circuit and lost; cannot relitigate.	Fasken’s claim precluded by prior D.C. Circuit review; denial of intervention is final.
Whether non-parties may bring ultra vires claims	Texas/Fasken: They can challenge ultra vires agency action even if not parties.	NRC: Ultra vires review is strictly limited and only available if no adequate remedy exists.	Ultra vires review unavailable; adequate judicial review existed for would-be intervenors.
Whether NRC had statutory authority for this license	Texas/Fasken: NRC lacked authority under statute, especially NWPA.	NRC: NRC’s longstanding interpretation and practice allows such licenses; law not disturbed by NWPA.	Not reached; the Court did not rule on the merits due to threshold standing issue.

United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 (explains that the syllabus is not part of the opinion)
Boire v. Greyhound Corp., 376 U.S. 473 (restricts nonstatutory ultra vires review)
Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 (establishes a narrow exception for ultra vires review)
Railway Clerks v. Association for Benefit of Noncontract Employees, 380 U.S. 650 (limits application of ultra vires review)
Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm’n, 461 U.S. 190 (discusses NRC’s authority over nuclear storage)
Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301 (addresses appealability and the requirement of party status)
United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928 (only parties or those who become parties may appeal)