Case: 23-60377 Document: 128-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED October 20, 2025 No. 23-60377 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk Fasken Land and Minerals, Limited; Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners, Petitioners, versus Nuclear Regulatory Commission; United States of America, Respondents. ______________________________ Appeal from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency No. 72-1051 ______________________________ ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before Elrod, Chief Judge, and Jones, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* In 2021 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a license to Interim Storage Partners, LLC, to establish a facility to store nuclear waste _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-60377 Document: 128-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2025 No. 23-60377 temporarily in Andrews County, Texas. Texas v. NRC, 78 F.4th 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2023), rev’d, 605 U.S. 665 (2025). In that case, the State of Texas and private entities Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd., (Fasken) and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners (PBLRO) petitioned this court to set aside that license. Id. We did so, based on our threshold determination that the petitioners had standing to challenge the license because they were “part[ies] aggrieved by the final order” of the NRC granting the license. Id. at 837 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2344). Separately, Fasken and PBLRO filed another petition for review asking this court to vacate a separate license issued by the NRC in May 2023 to Holtec International, to establish a nuclear waste storage facility in Lea County, New Mexico. Fasken Land & Mins., Ltd. v. NRC, No. 23-60377, 2024 WL 3175460, at *1 (5th Cir. Mar. 27, 2024), vacated, 145 S. Ct. 2834 (2025). Following Texas v. NRC, this court also vacated Holtec’s license. Id. at *1. The Supreme Court reversed our judgment in Texas v. NRC, concluding that the petitioners “were not parties to the [NRC’s] licensing proceeding” and were therefore “not entitled to obtain judicial review of the [NRC’s] licensing decision.” NRC v. Texas, 605 U.S. 665, 690 (2025). On remand, this court dismissed that petition, as required by the Supreme Court’s holding. Texas v. NRC, 152 F.4th 686, 687 (5th Cir. 2025). The result in this case is likewise controlled by the Supreme Court’s decision in NRC v. Texas. See Holtec Int’l v. NRC, 145 S. Ct. 2838 (2025) (remanding this case for further consideration in the light of NRC v. Texas, 605 U.S. at 665). Applying the Supreme Court’s holding in NRC v. Texas, we lack jurisdiction to consider this petition. Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED. 2