ML25293A448
| ML25293A448 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | HI-STORE |
| Issue date: | 10/20/2025 |
| From: | Cayce L US Federal Judiciary, Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit |
| To: | Fasken Land & Minerals, Ltd, NRC/OGC, Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners |
| References | |
| 23-60377, 128-1 | |
| Download: ML25293A448 (1) | |
Text
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit No. 23-60377 Fasken Land and Minerals, Limited; Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners, Petitioners, versus Nuclear Regulatory Commission; United States of America, Respondents.
Appeal from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency No. 72-1051 ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before Elrod, Chief Judge, and Jones, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
In 2021 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a license to Interim Storage Partners, LLC, to establish a facility to store nuclear waste
- This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 20, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-60377 Document: 128-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2025
No. 23-60377 2
temporarily in Andrews County, Texas. Texas v. NRC, 78 F.4th 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2023), revd, 605 U.S. 665 (2025). In that case, the State of Texas and private entities Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd., (Fasken) and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners (PBLRO) petitioned this court to set aside that license. Id. We did so, based on our threshold determination that the petitioners had standing to challenge the license because they were part[ies]
aggrieved by the final order of the NRC granting the license. Id. at 837 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2344).
Separately, Fasken and PBLRO filed another petition for review asking this court to vacate a separate license issued by the NRC in May 2023 to Holtec International, to establish a nuclear waste storage facility in Lea County, New Mexico. Fasken Land & Mins., Ltd. v. NRC, No. 23-60377, 2024 WL 3175460, at *1 (5th Cir. Mar. 27, 2024), vacated, 145 S. Ct. 2834 (2025). Following Texas v. NRC, this court also vacated Holtecs license. Id.
at *1.
The Supreme Court reversed our judgment in Texas v. NRC, concluding that the petitioners were not parties to the [NRCs] licensing proceeding and were therefore not entitled to obtain judicial review of the
[NRCs] licensing decision. NRC v. Texas, 605 U.S. 665, 690 (2025). On remand, this court dismissed that petition, as required by the Supreme Courts holding. Texas v. NRC, 152 F.4th 686, 687 (5th Cir. 2025). The result in this case is likewise controlled by the Supreme Courts decision in NRC v. Texas. See Holtec Intl v. NRC, 145 S. Ct. 2838 (2025) (remanding this case for further consideration in the light of NRC v. Texas, 605 U.S. at 665).
Applying the Supreme Courts holding in NRC v. Texas, we lack jurisdiction to consider this petition. Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED.
Case: 23-60377 Document: 128-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2025
United States Court of Appeals FIFTH CIRCUIT OFFICE OF THE CLERK LYLE W. CAYCE CLERK TEL. 504-310-7700 600 S. MAESTRI PLACE, Suite 115 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 October 20, 2025 MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES LISTED BELOW Regarding: Fifth Circuit Statement on Petitions for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc No. 23-60377 Fasken Land and Minerals v. NRC USDC No. 72-1051 Enclosed is a copy of the courts decision. The court has entered judgment under Fed. R. App. P. 36. (However, the opinion may yet contain typographical or printing errors which are subject to correction.)
Fed. R. App. P. 39 through 41, and Fed. R. App. P. 39, 40, and 41 govern costs, rehearings, and mandates. Fed. R. App. P. 40 require you to attach to your petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc an unmarked copy of the courts opinion or order. Please read carefully the Internal Operating Procedures (IOPs) following Fed. R. App. P. 40 for a discussion of when a rehearing may be appropriate, the legal standards applied and sanctions which may be imposed if you make a nonmeritorious petition for rehearing en banc.
Direct Criminal Appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 41 provides that a motion for a stay of mandate under Fed. R. App. P. 41 will not be granted simply upon request. The petition must set forth good cause for a stay or clearly demonstrate that a substantial question will be presented to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, this court may deny the motion and issue the mandate immediately.
Pro Se Cases. If you were unsuccessful in the district court and/or on appeal, and are considering filing a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, you do not need to file a motion for stay of mandate under Fed. R. App. P. 41. The issuance of the mandate does not affect the time, or your right, to file with the Supreme Court.
Court Appointed Counsel. Court appointed counsel is responsible for filing petition(s) for rehearing(s) (panel and/or en banc) and writ(s) of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, unless relieved of your obligation by court order. If it is your intention to file a motion to withdraw as counsel, you should notify your client promptly, and advise them of the time limits for filing for rehearing and certiorari. Additionally, you MUST confirm that this information was given to your client, within the body of your motion to withdraw as counsel.
Case: 23-60377 Document: 128-2 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2025
The judgment entered provides that petitioners pay to respondents the costs on appeal. A bill of cost form is available on the courts website www.ca5.uscourts.gov.
Sincerely, LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk By:_________________________
Lisa E. Ferrara, Deputy Clerk Enclosure(s)
Mr. Andrew Paul Averbach Mr. Benjamin L. Bernell Mr. Paul D. Clement Mr. Justin Heminger Mr. Allan L. Kanner Ms. Annemieke Monique Tennis Case: 23-60377 Document: 128-2 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2025