325:. 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. 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. 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.
31:
826:
361:
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
336:
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
268:
in the southeastern United States. In 1986, North
Carolina was chosen as the location for the regional waste facility, and it asked the other states for funding to help with the project. The project stalled and was eventually shut down, despite North Carolina receiving $ 80 million from the
604:
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
345:
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. The plaintiffs requested "monetary and other relief, including a declaration that North
332:
against North
Carolina. North Carolina responded by attempting to leave the Compact entirely. 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
113:
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
333:
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".
362:
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.
917:
912:
250:
198:
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)
54:
State of Alabama, State of Florida, State of Tennessee, Commonwealth of Virginia, and Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Commission, Plaintiffs v. State of North Carolina
644:
282:
850:
72:
232:
485:
603:
581:
907:
269:
other states. After the project's demise, the other states demanded their money back, but North Carolina refused to repay them, leading to this case.
927:
763:
729:
365:
The Court remanded the remainder of the case back to the Special Master to further adjudicate the equitable claims raised by the petitioners.
636:
546:
346:
Carolina is subject to sanctions and that the commission's sanctions resolution is valid and enforceable." The case was assigned to a
35:
474:"The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and the Tenth Amendment: A Paragon of Legislative Success or a Failure of Accountability"
353:
In January 2010, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the exceptions to the reports that were filed by both parties.
422:
455:
473:
253:
91:
611:
922:
337:
such monetary sanctions. However, North Carolina disagreed, and refused to comply with the commission's sanctions.
573:
708:
515:
690:
278:
861:
401:
854:
64:
298:
870:
721:
161:
751:
329:
261:
538:
803:
790:
322:
137:
264:
over the funding for a joint project. Eight states had formed the compact in 1983 to manage
834:
286:
265:
181:
157:
149:
101:
637:"Virginia Compacts - Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact"
260:
and the other members of the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management
347:
306:
257:
169:
145:
693:, 925 (U.S. 2003) ("Motion for leave to file bill of complaint granted.").
496:– via Law Journals and Related Materials at Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository.
901:
830:
414:
173:
129:
508:"About Us – Southeast Compact Commission – Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management"
67:
444:
452:
Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives
328:
In response, in June 1999, Florida and Tennessee asked that the commission levy
302:
285:
to authorize the creation of interstate agreements regarding the management of
543:
William and Mary Journal of Environmental Law and Environmental Practice News
310:
79:
879:
314:
294:
290:
666:
373:
In January 2011, the case was dismissed by agreement of the parties.
892:
319:
Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact
238:
Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact
507:
829:
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the
289:. Accordingly, in 1983, North Carolina, along with the states of
30:
574:"Rights of states under waste disposal compact - SCOTUSblog"
445:"Public Law 96-573: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act"
887:
668:
Motions and Policies of the Southeast Compact Commission
539:"Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Southeast Progress Report"
256:
case. It arose from a disagreement between the state of
918:
United States Supreme Court original jurisdiction cases
913:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
835:
Alabama et al. v. North Carolina (2010), Slip Opinion
226:
218:
210:
202:
194:
189:
118:
107:
97:
87:
59:
49:
42:
23:
804:"Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States"
722:"A good day for North Carolina? - SCOTUSblog"
8:
774:– via Hein Online Law Journal Library.
752:"Report of the Nuclear Regulation Committee"
568:
566:
564:
557:– via Hein Online Law Journal Library.
321:to coordinate their management of low-level
20:
461:from the original on February 10, 2017.
381:
584:from the original on November 25, 2018
518:from the original on September 3, 2018
488:from the original on November 23, 2018
425:from the original on November 20, 2018
391:
389:
387:
385:
283:Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act
206:Kennedy (in part), joined by Sotomayor
766:from the original on December 4, 2018
549:from the original on December 4, 2018
18:2010 United States Supreme Court case
7:
888:Southeast Compact Commission website
732:from the original on October 1, 2015
647:from the original on July 26, 2017
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
908:United States Supreme Court cases
857:330 (2010) is available from:
233:U. S. Const., Art. III, §2, cl. 2
824:
610:(1999-357). 1999. Archived from
29:
928:2010 in United States case law
793:, 1175 (January 18, 2011).
472:Ashe, A. Marice (March 1993).
249:, 560 U.S. 330 (2010), was an
1:
893:Compact (PDF, download only)
674:(List by date of enactment.)
415:"NRC: Governing Legislation"
711:, 1014 (U.S. 2003).
537:Woodward, Kathleen (1986).
287:low-level radioactive waste
266:low-level radioactive waste
254:United States Supreme Court
944:
880:Oyez (oral argument audio)
847:Alabama v. North Carolina
786:Alabama v. North Carolina
704:Alabama v. North Carolina
686:Alabama v. North Carolina
397:Alabama v. North Carolina
350:, who filed two reports.
246:Alabama v. North Carolina
231:
222:Breyer, joined by Roberts
214:Roberts, joined by Thomas
123:
112:
28:
24:Alabama v. North Carolina
43:Argued January 11, 2010
672:(PDF (download only))
478:Ecology Law Quarterly
251:original jurisdiction
78:130 S. Ct. 2295; 176
728:. January 14, 2010.
641:law.lis.virginia.gov
580:. January 11, 2010.
402:560 U.S. 330
236:28 U. S. C. §1251(a)
45:Decided June 1, 2010
162:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
756:Energy Law Journal
369:Subsequent history
330:monetary sanctions
134:Associate Justices
923:Radioactive waste
762:: 667–704. 2010.
323:radioactive waste
242:
241:
935:
884:
878:
875:
869:
866:
860:
828:
827:
819:
818:
816:
814:
808:
800:
794:
788:
782:
776:
775:
773:
771:
748:
742:
741:
739:
737:
718:
712:
706:
700:
694:
688:
682:
676:
675:
673:
663:
657:
656:
654:
652:
633:
627:
626:
624:
622:
616:
609:
605:waste management
600:
594:
593:
591:
589:
570:
559:
558:
556:
554:
534:
528:
527:
525:
523:
504:
498:
497:
495:
493:
469:
463:
462:
460:
449:
441:
435:
434:
432:
430:
411:
405:
399:
393:
119:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
943:
942:
938:
937:
936:
934:
933:
932:
898:
897:
882:
876:
873:
867:
864:
858:
842:
825:
822:
812:
810:
806:
802:
801:
797:
784:
783:
779:
769:
767:
750:
749:
745:
735:
733:
720:
719:
715:
702:
701:
697:
684:
683:
679:
671:
665:
664:
660:
650:
648:
635:
634:
630:
620:
618:
617:on June 6, 2013
614:
607:
602:
601:
597:
587:
585:
572:
571:
562:
552:
550:
536:
535:
531:
521:
519:
506:
505:
501:
491:
489:
471:
470:
466:
458:
447:
443:
442:
438:
428:
426:
413:
412:
408:
395:
394:
383:
379:
371:
359:
343:
275:
237:
235:
182:Sonia Sotomayor
172:
160:
158:Clarence Thomas
150:Anthony Kennedy
148:
138:John P. Stevens
83:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
941:
939:
931:
930:
925:
920:
915:
910:
900:
899:
896:
895:
890:
885:
871:Google Scholar
841:
840:External links
838:
821:
820:
809:. July 1, 2019
795:
777:
743:
713:
695:
677:
658:
628:
595:
560:
529:
499:
464:
436:
406:
380:
378:
375:
370:
367:
358:
355:
348:special master
342:
339:
307:South Carolina
274:
271:
258:North Carolina
240:
239:
229:
228:
224:
223:
220:
219:Concur/dissent
216:
215:
212:
211:Concur/dissent
208:
207:
204:
200:
199:
196:
192:
191:
187:
186:
185:
184:
170:Stephen Breyer
146:Antonin Scalia
135:
132:
127:
121:
120:
116:
115:
110:
109:
105:
104:
99:
95:
94:
89:
85:
84:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
940:
929:
926:
924:
921:
919:
916:
914:
911:
909:
906:
905:
903:
894:
891:
889:
886:
881:
872:
863:
862:CourtListener
856:
852:
848:
844:
843:
839:
837:
836:
832:
831:public domain
805:
799:
796:
792:
787:
781:
778:
765:
761:
757:
753:
747:
744:
731:
727:
723:
717:
714:
710:
705:
699:
696:
692:
687:
681:
678:
670:
669:
662:
659:
646:
642:
638:
632:
629:
613:
606:
599:
596:
583:
579:
575:
569:
567:
565:
561:
548:
544:
540:
533:
530:
517:
513:
512:secompact.org
509:
503:
500:
487:
483:
479:
475:
468:
465:
457:
453:
446:
440:
437:
424:
420:
416:
410:
407:
403:
398:
392:
390:
388:
386:
382:
376:
374:
368:
366:
363:
356:
354:
351:
349:
340:
338:
334:
331:
326:
324:
320:
317:, formed the
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
272:
270:
267:
263:
259:
255:
252:
248:
247:
234:
230:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
190:Case opinions
188:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
136:
133:
131:
128:
126:Chief Justice
125:
124:
122:
117:
111:
106:
103:
100:
96:
93:
92:Oral argument
90:
86:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
846:
823:
811:. Retrieved
798:
791:562 U.S.
785:
780:
770:December 10,
768:. Retrieved
759:
755:
746:
736:November 20,
734:. Retrieved
725:
716:
709:540 U.S.
703:
698:
691:539 U.S.
685:
680:
667:
661:
651:November 20,
649:. Retrieved
640:
631:
621:November 20,
619:. Retrieved
612:the original
598:
588:November 20,
586:. Retrieved
577:
553:December 10,
551:. Retrieved
542:
532:
522:November 20,
520:. Retrieved
511:
502:
492:December 10,
490:. Retrieved
481:
477:
467:
451:
439:
429:November 22,
427:. Retrieved
418:
409:
404: (2010).
396:
372:
364:
360:
352:
344:
341:Case history
335:
327:
318:
276:
245:
244:
243:
227:Laws applied
177:
174:Samuel Alito
165:
153:
141:
130:John Roberts
71:
53:
15:
419:www.nrc.gov
303:Mississippi
281:passed the
203:Concurrence
902:Categories
813:August 10,
726:SCOTUSblog
578:SCOTUSblog
377:References
273:Background
311:Tennessee
277:In 1980,
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
845:Text of
764:Archived
730:Archived
645:Archived
582:Archived
547:Archived
516:Archived
486:Archived
456:Archived
423:Archived
357:Decision
315:Virginia
279:Congress
195:Majority
114:Carolina
98:Decision
88:Argument
545:: 1–4.
299:Georgia
295:Florida
291:Alabama
262:Compact
108:Holding
102:Opinion
883:
877:
874:
868:
865:
859:
833::
789:,
707:,
689:,
400:,
313:, and
180:
178:·
176:
168:
166:·
164:
156:
154:·
152:
144:
142:·
140:
853:
807:(PDF)
615:(PDF)
608:(PDF)
459:(PDF)
448:(PDF)
855:U.S.
815:2019
772:2018
738:2018
653:2018
623:2018
590:2018
555:2018
524:2018
494:2018
431:2018
82:1070
73:more
65:U.S.
63:560
851:560
68:330
904::
849:,
760:31
758:.
754:.
724:.
643:.
639:.
576:.
563:^
541:.
514:.
510:.
484:.
482:20
480:.
476:.
454:.
450:.
421:.
417:.
384:^
309:,
305:,
301:,
297:,
293:,
817:.
740:.
655:.
625:.
592:.
526:.
433:.
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.