Whether the Hobbs Act deprives a federal district court of subject matter jurisdiction over state law and Price-Anderson Act claims asserted by a private actor against private party NRC licensees, on the ground such claims are 'ancillary or incidental to' an NRC final order

QUESTION PRESENTED The burial and storage of nuclear waste in faulty canisters on a California beach significantly threatens public health and safety. Petitioner sought to enjoin the tortious conduct of private entities decommissioning the San Onofre nuclear plant, but the courts below dismissed its claims in favor of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) forum that cannot provide appropriate relief. In Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 248 (1984), this Court addressed an “important” issue “affect[ing] both the states’ traditional authority to provide tort remedies to its citizens and the federal government’s express desire to maintain exclusive regulatory authority over the safety aspects of nuclear power,” and concluded that state law claims and remedies are not wholly displaced by federal regulation. See also Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 790 F.3d 1088, 1098 (10th Cir. 2015) (Gorsuch, J.) (same). Recently, four Justices warned against allowing the Hobbs Act to exceed constitutional bounds and swallow up viable claims. PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc, 189 S. Ct. 2051, 2057 (2019) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). The decision below strips district courts of jurisdiction over private litigation against NRC licensees, contrary to the Hobbs Act’s language and purpose, this Court’s precedents, and multiple circuit courts. The question presented is: Whether the Hobbs Act deprives a federal district court of subject matter jurisdiction over state law and Price-Anderson Act claims asserted by a private actor against private party NRC licensees, on the ground such claims are “ancillary or incidental to” an NRC final order.