984 F.3d 744
9th Cir.2020Background
- Public Watchdogs (plaintiff) challenged decommissioning at San Onofre (SONGS), alleging NRC-approved use of Holtec HI‑STORM UMAX canisters is unsafe and that utilities (Edison, SDG&E, Sempra) and Holtec acted negligently or changed designs without NRC approval.
- In 2015 the NRC issued License Amendments permitting decommissioning actions at SONGS and added Holtec’s system to the list of certified storage systems via a Certificate of Compliance; both actions were subject to public comment.
- Public Watchdogs alleged canister defects, mishandling incidents during loading/transport, and that the NRC failed to take adequate enforcement (including refusal to suspend operations); sought injunctive relief and brought APA, Price‑Anderson, public nuisance, and strict products liability claims.
- The district court dismissed the first amended complaint with prejudice for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act; Public Watchdogs filed a § 2.206 petition with the NRC and appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the Hobbs Act vests exclusive initial jurisdiction in the courts of appeals over final NRC licensing orders and decisions preliminary/ancillary to licensing (so the district court lacked jurisdiction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Hobbs Act jurisdiction: whether district court may hear challenges | Public Watchdogs: Hobbs Act should be read narrowly; district court can hear claims challenging NRC enforcement refusals and other non‑licensing actions | Defendants: Hobbs Act provides exclusive, broad circuit‑court review of final NRC orders and ancillary/preliminary decisions | Held: Hobbs Act read broadly (Lorion, Gen. Atomics); courts of appeals have exclusive initial jurisdiction over final licensing orders and ancillary/preliminary decisions. |
| Whether APA claim challenges final NRC licensing orders (2015 License Amendments and Holtec Certificate) | PW: FAC primarily sought to halt dangerous transfer operations, not to directly attack license amendments/certificate | Defs: FAC on its face attacks grant/amendment of license and the Certificate of Compliance | Held: Court treats FAC as directly challenging the 2015 License Amendments and Holtec Certificate (Hobbs Act exclusive). |
| Whether "other agency actions" (enforcement choices, alleged exemptions) escape Hobbs Act | PW: Several NRC actions (e.g., alleged exemptions, decisions not to sanction) fall outside Hobbs Act and are reviewable in district court | Defs: Those actions are enforcement decisions or are ancillary to licensed activity and thus fall within Hobbs Act; relief sought (suspension) should have been pursued via §2.206 | Held: The "other agency actions" are enforcement/ancillary matters related to the licenses; challenges to NRC decisions not to suspend belong in courts of appeals (and PW should have/ did file §2.206). |
| Whether claims against private defendants can avoid Hobbs Act by artful pleading | PW: Claims are ordinary state‑law tort, Price‑Anderson, and products‑liability actions against private entities | Defs: Those claims are inextricably tied to NRC licensing and certification and thus fall within Hobbs Act exclusive review | Held: Court rejects artful pleading; claims against Holtec and utilities challenge NRC orders/certifications or conduct authorized by them, so Hobbs Act bars district court jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (Hobbs Act grants courts of appeals initial jurisdiction over final NRC licensing orders and ancillary decisions)
- Gen. Atomics v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 75 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 1996) (Hobbs Act construed broadly to include preliminary or incidental licensing decisions)
- American Bird Conservancy v. FCC, 545 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008) (artful pleading cannot evade statutory exclusive review provisions)
- Cal. Save Our Streams Council, Inc. v. Yeutter, 887 F.2d 908 (9th Cir. 1989) (claims that effectively attack agency licensing decisions fall within exclusive appellate review)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency decisions not to take enforcement action are presumptively unreviewable)