## Facts

- A large uranium deposit was discovered at Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County, Virginia, on privately owned land.
- In 1982, Virginia enacted a statute that prohibits uranium mining in the state unless and until the Virginia legislature enacts a permitting program; no such program has been enacted.
- Virginia Uranium, Inc. and related entities wanted to mine the uranium ore and, as part of the contemplated project, mill the ore into “yellowcake” and manage radioactive tailings generated by milling.
- The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) gives the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) authority over specified nuclear materials and radiological safety in the later stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium milling and tailings, but not over conventional mining of uranium ore before it is removed from the ground.
- Virginia Uranium sued state officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the theory that the AEA preempts Virginia’s mining ban under the Supremacy Clause.
- Virginia Uranium alleged that, even though the state law is written as a mining prohibition, its real aim and practical effect were to address radiological safety risks associated with milling and tailings—areas in which federal law assigns regulatory authority to the NRC.
- The federal district court dismissed the complaint, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that Congress did not displace state authority over mining on private lands.

## Issues

1. Does the AEA preempt a state law that prohibits uranium mining on private land, either because Congress occupied the field of nuclear safety regulation or because the state law conflicts with federal objectives?
2. In assessing preemption under the AEA, may a court invalidate a state law regulating mining based on alleged legislative purpose to control downstream radiological safety matters regulated by the NRC?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit’s judgment by a 6–3 vote, with no majority opinion.
- Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, announced the judgment and concluded the AEA does not preempt Virginia’s mining ban because the statute leaves regulation of uranium mining on nonfederal land to the states; the NRC’s authority begins only after the uranium is extracted and enters federally regulated stages such as milling.
- The plurality rejected the argument that a facially valid mining prohibition becomes preempted based on speculation about the legislature’s motives, and declined to treat alleged purpose as a basis to extend federal preemption beyond the AEA’s textual scope.
- The plurality also rejected obstacle preemption, reasoning that nothing in the AEA requires states to allow mining to ensure uranium production; using obstacle preemption to compel state permission would go beyond what Congress enacted.
- Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, concurred in the judgment, agreeing that the AEA does not reach uranium mining and therefore does not preempt Virginia’s ban; her concurrence did not join all of the plurality’s broader discussion about limiting motive inquiries.
- Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Breyer and Alito, dissented, arguing that a state may not use a mining ban as a means to regulate radiological safety concerns Congress placed under exclusive federal control, and that courts should consider whether the ban’s purpose and effects intrude into the federally occupied field.

## Legal Principles

- Federal preemption depends on congressional enactments; courts look first to statutory text, structure, and the regulatory domain Congress assigned to federal agencies.
- The AEA gives the NRC substantial authority over radiological safety in activities such as uranium milling and tailings management, but it does not confer NRC authority over conventional uranium mining on private, nonfederal land before extraction.
- States retain authority to regulate or prohibit mining within their borders when Congress has not displaced that authority, even if state regulation affects whether federally regulated downstream activities will occur.
- A majority of the Court declined to invalidate a state law regulating an area left to state control based on allegations about legislative motive; where federal law does not cover the regulated activity, preemption does not arise from disputed legislative reasons.
- Obstacle preemption under the AEA does not allow courts to require states to permit uranium mining when Congress left mining regulation to the states and did not mandate any particular level of uranium development.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the Atomic Energy Act does not preempt Virginia’s statutory prohibition on uranium mining on private land because the AEA’s federal regulatory scheme begins after extraction and does not displace state authority over mining, and a majority of the Court rejected using asserted legislative purpose or generalized federal aims to extend preemption beyond the statute’s reach.


Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 139 S. Ct. 1894 (2019)