The NCSL Blog

10

By Lisa Soronen

The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) filed a Supreme Court amicus brief in Virginia Uranium v. Warren arguing that Virginia’s ban on uranium mining isn’t preempted by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA).

VIn this Sept. 14, 2004, file photo, Smith Ranch-Highland employee, April Frausto, samples water for contamination, at a monitoring well on the perimeter of the uranium mining zone 30 miles north of Douglas, Wyo. (AP Photo/Robert Black)irginia has the largest known uranium deposit in the United States. Since its discovery in the 1980s, the Virginia legislature has banned uranium mining. Unsurprisingly, the land owner, Virginia Uranium, wants to mine. It sued the state arguing the ban is preempted by federal law.

The AEA allows states to “regulate activities for purposes other than protection against radiation hazards.” Virginia and Virginia Uranium agree uranium mining isn’t an “activity” per the AEA so states may regulate it for safety reasons. Uranium-ore milling and tailings storage are “activities” under the AEA so states can’t regulate them for safety reasons. Milling is the process of refining ore and tailings storage refers to the remaining (radioactive) material which must be stored.

Before the lower court, Virginia argued, and the Fourth Circuit agreed, that its ban on uranium mining isn’t preempted because it doesn’t mention uranium milling or tailings storage. Virginia Uranium pointed out “no one would want to undertake the pointless expense of constructing a mill and tailings-management complex in Virginia and transporting out-of-state uranium [ore] into the Commonwealth.”

The company also argued the AEA preempts the mining ban because its purpose and effect is to regulate milling and tailings storage for safety reasons. But the Fourth Circuit refused to “look past the statute’s plain meaning to decipher whether the legislature was motivated to pass the ban by a desire to regulate uranium milling or tailings storage” when Virginia banned uranium mining.

The SLLC amicus brief, which was joined by NCSL, points out that Virginia Uranium “seek[s] to compel a state to allow uranium minimum on nonfederal land based on federal preemption, even though the federal act in question is silent as to uranium mining on nonfederal land, mining is historically subject to state police power, and a statute in the state in question bans uranium mining.”

According to the brief, “[s]uch extraordinary relief would not be subject to a limiting principle.” The brief also notes that Virginia Uranium’s argument involves “divining the subjective intent of a state legislature rather than relying on the plain text of the state’s legislation.” The SLLC amicus brief describes how “peering behind statutory text in search of some unexpressed actual motive is a fruitless endeavor.”

John J. Korzen, Wake Forest University School of Law Appellate Advocacy Clinic, wrote the SLLC amicus brief which was also joined by the National League of Cities and the International City/County Management Association.

Lisa Soronen is executive director of the State and Local Legal Center and a frequent contributor to the NCSL Blog on judicial issues.

 

 

Actions: E-mail | Permalink |

Subscribe to the NCSL Blog

Click on the RSS feed at left to add the NCSL Blog to your favorite RSS reader. 

About the NCSL Blog

This blog offers updates on the National Conference of State Legislatures' research and training, the latest on federalism and the state legislative institution, and posts about state legislators and legislative staff. The blog is edited by NCSL staff and written primarily by NCSL's experts on public policy and the state legislative institution.