As we look forward to 2026, we wanted to share with you a series of blogs to recap of some of the worst U.S. Supreme Court decisions that will shape our ability to protect our environment for decades to come. (Blog 1/4) 

Loper Bright in Action: NRC v. Texas (June 2025) 

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions have fundamentally reshaped the way federal law is interpreted and applied. In our earlier post, PA and a Post “Chevron” World, we discussed the landmark case Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), which overturned the 1984 precedent of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). 

Under Chevron, when Congress left gaps or used vague language in a statute, courts would defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation—trusting the “masters of the subject” to apply their technical expertise. This approach recognized that Congress cannot predict every future development. For example, in the Clean Air Act, Congress avoided creating a closed list of pollutants, leaving room for agencies to address newly discovered threats to public health and the environment. 

But in Loper Bright, the Court shifted that responsibility to the judiciary. Now, judges, not agencies with knowledge and expertise, decide the meaning of ambiguous statutory terms. While agencies can still offer expert perspectives, their interpretations no longer receive automatic deference. 

On June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court applied this post-Loper approach in NRC v. Texas, 145 S. Ct. 1762 (2025). The Court held that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) lacked authority under the Atomic Energy Act to license private interim storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel. Reading the statute closely, the Court found that Congress assigned responsibility for long-term nuclear waste storage to the Department of Energy, not private licensees, and that, absent clear congressional authorization, the NRC could not grant such licenses. 

The decision has sweeping implications for the nuclear energy sector. It removes a key tool, the ability of private entities to store spent fuel, and shifts the entire burden of storage to the federal government, even though federal capacity is already stretched thin. 

Supporters of the Court’s shift may welcome the move as a check on agency overreach and a reaffirmation of Congress’s role in lawmaking. Critics, however, warn that it could undermine long-standing regulations that protect public health, safety, and the environment. Without agency deference, well-established rules could be challenged, and potentially dismantled, by parties seeking to avoid compliance. 

In theory, Congress could respond by updating laws to meet evolving challenges. In practice, a politically divided legislature may lack the capacity or will to act quickly. For decades, expert-driven agency interpretations have helped bridge that gap, freeing Congress to address other pressing national needs. Time will only tell just how far Loper Bright will go in eroding federal protections, and this case was just one of the first examples.  

PennFuture’s attorneys are working hard to protect our environment and the rule of law. Support our efforts by donating to our Legal Environmental Advocacy Fund (LEAF) today!