Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

In re Aiken County

725 F.3d 255 (2013)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...

In re Aiken County

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

725 F.3d 255 (2013)

Facts

Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1983. The act required the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the commission) (defendant) to consider the United States Department of Energy’s license application to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The act also required the commission to issue a final decision approving or denying the application within at most four years of submission. The Department of Energy submitted its license application in June 2008. Congress appropriated at least $11.1 million to the commission for the fiscal year 2011 for the purpose of conducting the licensing process. The deadline to make a determination on the license application passed without a final decision. The commission indicated that it had no intention of complying with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and ceased the licensing-application-review process. Beginning in 2010, the states of South Carolina and Washington (plaintiffs), among other parties, sought a writ of mandamus to force the commission to comply with the act. In 2011, a prior three-judge panel of the court of appeals cautioned the Department of Energy that if it failed to act, a writ of mandamus would likely be appropriate. In 2012, the states filed a new mandamus petition. In August 2012, this panel of the court of appeals issued an order suspending the case to allow time for the receipt of updated information on appropriations for the licensing process for fiscal year 2013. At this time, the commission strenuously claimed that Congress did not want the licensing process to move forward, so this panel provided time for Congress to clarify the issue. This panel warned that if Congress did not act, then the mandamus petition would eventually have to be granted. Over a year passed from the date the order was issued, so this panel revisited the petition for a writ of mandamus.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kavanaugh, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,700 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership