Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren

Virginia Uranium, Inc v. Warren
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 5, 2018
Decided June 17, 2019
Full case nameVirginia Uranium Inc., et al., v. John Warren, et al.
Docket no.16-1275
Citations587 U.S. (more)
139 S. Ct. 1894; 204 L. Ed. 2d 377
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
PriorMotion 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
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
PluralityGorsuch, joined by Thomas, Kavanaugh
ConcurrenceGinsburg (in judgment), joined by Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentRoberts, 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]

  1. ^ Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, No. 16-1275, 587 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1894 (2019).
  2. ^ 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.
  3. ^ Jaffe, Cale (January 11, 2019). "Virginia's uranium mining battle flips traditional views of federal and state power". The Conversation. Retrieved November 27, 2019.
  4. ^ Hammond, Emily (November 6, 2018). "Argument analysis: Justices express skepticism over using legislative motive in pre-emption analysis". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved November 26, 2019.