Background and Procedural History

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted a license to a private applicant to build and operate an off-site spent nuclear fuel storage facility. The State of Texas and a private company, neither of which had been parties to the NRC licensing proceeding, petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review of the Commission's decision. The Fifth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Ho, vacated the license and subsequently denied rehearing en banc. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether non-parties to an administrative proceeding may obtain judicial review under the Hobbs Act.

The Standing Question

Writing for a six-Justice majority, Justice Kavanaugh held that Texas and the company were not "parties aggrieved" within the meaning of the Hobbs Act's judicial-review provision because they were not parties to the Commission proceedings under the Atomic Energy Act. The Court concluded that under the AEA's intervention provision, one must be the license applicant or must successfully intervene to obtain party status in NRC licensing proceedings. Because Texas and the company were not license applicants and did not obtain intervenor status, they could not file petitions for judicial review of the licensing order under the Hobbs Act.

Rejection of Comment-Based Party Status

The Court rejected Texas's argument that its submission of comments on the draft environmental impact statement rendered it a party to the proceeding. According to the Court's analysis, Texas's submission of information and views for the Commission to analyze in its decisionmaking process was akin to the submission of an amicus brief in a court proceeding, which did not equate to party status under the AEA. The majority emphasized that under the AEA's intervention provision, a person becomes a party only after that person requests to participate in a hearing before the Commission and is actually admitted to such proceeding by the Commission.

Ultra Vires Claims and Alternative Review Mechanisms

The Court further held that the company and Texas failed to allege ultra vires action subject to nonstatutory judicial review. Additionally, the availability of an alternative path to judicial review precluded nonstatutory review under an ultra vires theory. The majority noted that if the Commission errs in denying intervention, the denied person or entity may obtain judicial review of the denial of intervention itself, but until intervention is granted, that person or entity is not a party and cannot obtain judicial review of the Commission's licensing decision under the Hobbs Act.

Implications for Energy Infrastructure Challenges

The decision, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson, establishes clear procedural requirements for challenging federal energy licensing decisions. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. The ruling has significant implications for states and private parties seeking to challenge federal agency decisions regarding energy infrastructure, requiring them to formally intervene in administrative proceedings to preserve their right to judicial review.