In commenting on the Vermont Yankee decision and the recent SCOTUS decision in Nat’l Meat Assoc. v. Harris, my colleague Cheryl Hanna writes:

"But what I will offer is this: Animal rights activists and anti-nuclear advocates face similar uphill battles when it comes to using state law as a means for accomplishing their ends. If you carefully examine the last five years of federal pre-emption cases, the federal courts continue to side more often (albeit not always) with industry. When states such as California and Vermont, with progressive political agendas, try to respond to federal acquiescence to industry by seeking a route around federal law, they will find it very hard to do. Animal rights activists are already up on Capital Hill today in response to the decision, lobbying Congress to change the Federal Meat Inspection Act to give the states more power. It may well be that the anti-nuclear advocates ought to pursue a similar strategy to have the Atomic Energy Act more explicitly allow states greater control of nuclear power plants within their boarders. Unless Congress gives the states some more explicit power here, I have a hard time seeing a federal court granting it, especially after yesterday’s decision.:

See full commentary here.