We will hear argument this morning in case 23,300, Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas and the

consolidated case. Mr. Stewart? Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

First, the petitions for review should be dismissed because neither Texas nor Faskin was a party to the NRC

licensing proceedings. Texas did not try to intervene in the agency adjudication. Faskin was a party to the NRC licensing proceedings. Texas did not try to intervene in the

agency adjudication. Faskin moved to intervene, but its request was denied, and the D.C. Circuit

affirmed the denial, and there is no sound basis for the Fifth Circuit's ultra-virus exception to the

Hobbs Act's party aggrieved requirement. If the Court reaches the merits, it should reverse

the Court of Appeals judgment. The Atomic Energy Act prohibits the unlicensed possession of spent

nuclear fuels constituent parts while authorizing the Commission to license private interim

storage of those substances. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act left that scheme intact.

And since 1980, the NRC's regulations have provided for both on-site and off-site storage.

That system allows a substantial role for private market responses to the country's nuclear

waste storage issues, subject to commission oversight

to ensure that storage is safe and consistent with statutory requirements.

I welcome the Court's questions.

Mr. Stewart, what does it take to be a party in these proceedings?

In an adjudication, you would need to intervene and the Commission's rule set out the process for intervention?

So when can a party, when can an interested person intervene?

The Commission's rule set out two requirements. One is that basically a standing requirement,

and that is essentially that you be an interested person, that your

interests be affected by the outcome. And second, the Commission's rules require what's called

an admissible contention. And the rules were changed in 1990. The changes were upheld by the

...