| Virginia Uranium, Inc v. Warren | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 5, 2018 Decided June 17, 2019 | |
| Full case name | Virginia Uranium Inc., et al., v. John Warren, et al. |
| Docket no. | 16-1275 |
| Citations | 587 U.S. (more) 139 S. Ct. 1894; 204 L. Ed. 2d 377 |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Motion to dismiss granted, Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. McAuliffe, 147 F. Supp. 3d 462 (W.D. Va. 2015); affirmed sub nom. Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 848 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 2023 (2018). |
| Holding | |
| The Atomic Energy Act does not preempt Virginia's moratorium on uranium mining | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Gorsuch, joined by Thomas, Kavanaugh |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg (in judgment), joined by Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Dissent | Roberts, joined by Breyer, Alito |
| Laws applied | |
| Atomic Energy Act of 1954, United States Constitution, Article VI | |
Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. In a split opinion, the Court held that the state of Virginia's ban on uranium mining did not conflict with the Atomic Energy Act.[1][2]
This case is significant because of its strong impact on environmentalism as well as its discussion of the interplay between states' rights and federal supremacy.[3] It also featured an extensive discussion as to what extent courts should evaluate a legislature's motive for passing a law.[4]
- ^ Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, No. 16-1275, 587 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1894 (2019).
- ^ Hammond, Emily (June 17, 2019). "Opinion analysis: Virginia's moratorium on uranium mining is not pre-empted, but the role of legislative purpose remains open for debate". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved November 26, 2019.
- ^ Jaffe, Cale (January 11, 2019). "Virginia's uranium mining battle flips traditional views of federal and state power". The Conversation. Retrieved November 27, 2019.
- ^ Hammond, Emily (November 6, 2018). "Argument analysis: Justices express skepticism over using legislative motive in pre-emption analysis". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved November 26, 2019.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search