Alabama v. North Carolina
| Alabama v. North Carolina | |
|---|---|
 L. Ed. 2d 1070 | |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Decision | Opinion |
| Holding | |
| North Carolina was not prohibited from withdrawing from the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact, and the Southeast Compact Commission had no authority to levy monetary sanctions against North Carolina | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, Alito; Roberts (all but Parts II–D and III–B); Kennedy, Sotomayor (all but Part II–E); Thomas (all but Part III–B); Breyer (all but Parts II–C, II–D, and II–E) |
| Concurrence | Kennedy (in part), joined by Sotomayor |
| Concur/dissent | Roberts, joined by Thomas |
| Concur/dissent | Breyer, joined by Roberts |
| Laws applied | |
| U. S. Const., Art. III, §2, cl. 2 28 U. S. C. §1251(a) Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact | |
Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330 (2010), was an
Background
In 1980, Congress passed the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act to authorize the creation of interstate agreements regarding the management of low-level radioactive waste.[2][3][4] Accordingly, in 1983, North Carolina, along with the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, formed the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact to coordinate their management of low-level radioactive waste.[5][6] It was run by a commission, which was tasked with choosing a State in which to construct a "regional disposal facility". In 1986, the commission chose North Carolina, thus requiring it to begin the process of seeking a licence for the construction of such a facility.[7] Two years later, North Carolina asked the other states for monetary assistance with the project, which it received – by 1997, North Carolina had been paid more than $80 million.[7] Yet, despite $34 million of North Carolina's own funds, it was unable to obtain the license in a timely fashion. In 1997, the commission told North Carolina that, without a plan for funding the rest of the licensing steps, it would be cut off; when it was, North Carolina began to shut down the project, claiming that it could not continue without additional funding.[1]
In response, in June 1999, Florida and Tennessee asked that the commission levy monetary sanctions against North Carolina. North Carolina responded by attempting to leave the Compact entirely.[8] It based this decision on a clause which declared that "any party state may withdraw from the compact by enacting a law repealing the compact, provided that if a regional facility is located within such state, such regional facility shall remain available to the region for four years after the date the commission receives verification in writing from the Governor of such party state of the rescission of the Compact".[9]
The commission, in response to the complaint by Florida and Tennessee, demanded in December 1999 that, in addition to other monetary penalties, North Carolina repay approximately $80 million. The commission believed that, under article 7(F) of the original Compact, it had the power to level such monetary sanctions.[10] However, North Carolina disagreed, and refused to comply with the commission's sanctions.
Case history
In 2003, the Supreme Court allowed Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, and Virginia (the only four remaining members of the Compact), and the commission to sue North Carolina under the Court's original jurisdiction.[1][7] The plaintiffs requested "monetary and other relief, including a declaration that North Carolina is subject to sanctions and that the commission's sanctions resolution is valid and enforceable."[11] The case was assigned to a special master,[12] who filed two reports.
In January 2010, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the exceptions to the reports that were filed by both parties.[13]
Decision
The Supreme Court overruled all of the states' objections to the Special Master's Reports. It held that the Compact did not give the commission the power to impose monetary sanctions against North Carolina; that the Court did not need to follow the commission's findings regarding North Carolina's supposed breach of its obligations; that North Carolina did not breach its obligations to take "appropriate steps" towards getting a license; and that North Carolina was allowed to withdraw from the Compact.[1]
The Court remanded the remainder of the case back to the Special Master to further adjudicate the equitable claims raised by the petitioners.[14]
Subsequent history
In January 2011, the case was dismissed by agreement of the parties.[15][16]
References
- ^ a b c d Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330 (2010).
- ^ "NRC: Governing Legislation". www.nrc.gov. Archived from the original on November 20, 2018. Retrieved November 22, 2018.
- ^ "Public Law 96-573: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act" (PDF). Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 10, 2017.
- ^ Ashe, A. Marice (March 1993). "The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and the Tenth Amendment: A Paragon of Legislative Success or a Failure of Accountability". Ecology Law Quarterly. 20. Archived from the original on November 23, 2018. Retrieved December 10, 2018 – via Law Journals and Related Materials at Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository.
- ^ "About Us – Southeast Compact Commission – Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management". secompact.org. Archived from the original on September 3, 2018. Retrieved November 20, 2018.
- ^ Woodward, Kathleen (1986). "Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Southeast Progress Report". William and Mary Journal of Environmental Law and Environmental Practice News: 1–4. Archived from the original on December 4, 2018. Retrieved December 10, 2018 – via Hein Online Law Journal Library.
- ^ a b c "Rights of states under waste disposal compact - SCOTUSblog". SCOTUSblog. January 11, 2010. Archived from the original on November 25, 2018. Retrieved November 20, 2018.
- ^ An act to withdraw North Carolina from the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact, to limit the authority of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Authority and to direct the Radiation Protection Commission to study and formulate a plan for low-level radioactive waste management (PDF) (1999-357). 1999. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 6, 2013. Retrieved November 20, 2018.
- ^ "Virginia Compacts - Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact". law.lis.virginia.gov. Archived from the original on July 26, 2017. Retrieved November 20, 2018.
- ^ Motions and Policies of the Southeast Compact Commission (PDF (download only)) (List by date of enactment.)
- ^ Alabama v. North Carolina, 539 U.S., 925 (U.S. 2003) ("Motion for leave to file bill of complaint granted.").
- ^ Alabama v. North Carolina, 540 U.S., 1014 (U.S. 2003).
- ^ "A good day for North Carolina? - SCOTUSblog". SCOTUSblog. January 14, 2010. Archived from the original on October 1, 2015. Retrieved November 20, 2018.
- ^ "Report of the Nuclear Regulation Committee". Energy Law Journal. 31: 667–704. 2010. Archived from the original on December 4, 2018. Retrieved December 10, 2018 – via Hein Online Law Journal Library.
- ^ Alabama v. North Carolina, 562 U.S., 1175 (January 18, 2011).
- ^ "Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States" (PDF). July 1, 2019. Retrieved August 10, 2019.
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain: Alabama et al. v. North Carolina (2010), Slip Opinion
External links
- Text of Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330 (2010) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Southeast Compact Commission website
- Compact (PDF, download only)