El Paso Natural Gas Company, et al. v. Laura Neztsosie et al. (526 U.S. 473)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 3, 1999 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 526 U.S. 473 · 119 S. Ct. 1430
- Decided
- May 3, 1999
- Term
- October Term 1998
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Souter
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. The issue is whether the judicially created doctrine of tribal-court exhaustion, requiring a district court to stay its hand while a tribal court determines its own jurisdiction, should apply in this case, which if brought in a state court would be subject to removal. We think the exhaustion doctrine should not extend so far. I With the object of “encouraging] the private sector to become involved in the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes,” Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 488 U. S. 59, 68 (1978), Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), 68 Stat. 919, a broad scheme of federal regulation and licensing. Because it “soon became apparent that profits from the private exploitation of atomic energy were uncertain and the accompanying risks substantial,” Duke Power, supra, at 63, in 1957 Congress amended the AEA with the Price-Anderson Act, 71 Stat. 576. Price-Anderson provided certain federal licensees with a system of private insurance, Government indemnification, and limited liability for claims of “public liability,” now defined generally as “any legal liability arising out of or resulting from a nuclear incident or precautionary evacuation . . . .” 42 U. S. C. §2014(w). The Act defines “nuclear incident” as “any occurrence ... within the United States causing ... bodily…
Excerpt of a 25,743-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.