Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian
Term: 2019
Important Dates
Argument: December 3, 2019
Decided: April 20, 2020
Outcome
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded
Vote
7-2
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring
Samuel Alito (in part) • Neil Gorsuch (in part)
Dissenting
Samuel Alito (in part) • Neil Gorsuch (in part) • Clarence Thomas •


Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian is a case that was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 3, 2019, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. The case comes on a writ of certiorari to the Montana Supreme Court.

The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the Montana Supreme Court's decision in a 7-2 ruling, holding the Montana Supreme Court was wrong to rule that "the landowners were not potentially responsible parties under the [Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980] and thus did not need EPA approval to take remedial action."[1] Click here for more information.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In 2008, a group of landowners located within the bounds of the Anaconda Smelter superfund site, sued the Atlantic Richfield Co. for common law trespass, nuisance, and strict liability and sought restoration damages. ARCO argued the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 preempted the landowners' claims. The district court dismissed the case. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the district court. On remand, the district court denied ARCO's motions. ARCO appealed again, and the state supreme court affirmed the district court's denial and remanded the case.[2]
  • The issue: (1) Whether a common-law claim for restoration seeking cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies is a "challenge" to EPA's cleanup jurisdictionally barred by § 113 of CERCLA. (2) Whether a landowner at a Superfund site is a "potentially responsible party" that must seek EPA's approval under CERCLA § 122(e)(6) before engaging in remedial action, even if EPA has never ordered the landowner to pay for a cleanup. (3) Whether CERCLA preempts state common-law claims for restoration that seek cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies.[3]
  • The outcome: The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the Montana Supreme Court's decision in a 7-2 ruling, holding the Montana Supreme Court was wrong to rule that "the landowners were not potentially responsible parties under the [Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980] and thus did not need EPA approval to take remedial action."[1]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • April 20, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the Montana Supreme Court's decision
    • December 3, 2019: Oral argument
    • June 10, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • April 27, 2018: Atlantic Richfield Company filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • December 29, 2017: The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the state district court's ruling.

    Background

    See also:
    Superfund
    Superfund sites in the United States
    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    In 1983, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated the Anaconda Smelter as a superfund site. A superfund refers to the EPA's program for monitoring and cleaning up contaminated waste sites. The EPA primarily supervises waste material removal at these sites to return them to practical use. In 1984, the EPA issued an administrative order requiring the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), the site's owner, to begin a remedial investigation of the site.[2]

    In 2008, The Property Owners, a group of 98 landowners located within the bounds of the Smelter Site, sued ARCO for common law trespass, nuisance, and strict liability and sought restoration damages. In 2013, ARCO moved for summary judgment, arguing the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) preempted The Property Owners' claims. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run out.[2]

    On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the district court. On remand, the district court denied ARCO's motions for summary judgment. ARCO appealed again, and the state supreme court affirmed the district court's ruling and remanded the case.[2]

    ARCO petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review. In its petition, ARCO argued the Montana Supreme Court's decision "creates splits on what kind of lawsuit constitutes a 'challenge' barred by § 113(h), on who qualifies as a 'potentially responsible party' barred from conducting unilateral, non-EPA-approved cleanups under § 122(e)(6), and on whether ordinary principles of conflict preemption apply under CERCLA."[4]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

    Questions presented:

    (1) Whether a common-law claim for restoration seeking cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies is a "challenge" to EPA's cleanup jurisdictionally barred by § 113 of CERCLA.

    (2) Whether a landowner at a Superfund site is a "potentially responsible party" that must seek EPA's approval under CERCLA § 122(e)(6) before engaging in remedial action, even if EPA has never ordered the landowner to pay for a cleanup.

    (3) Whether CERCLA preempts state common-law claims for restoration that seek cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies.[3]

    Outcome

    In a 7-2 opinion, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the Montana Supreme Court's ruling, holding the Montana Supreme Court was wrong to rule that "the landowners were not potentially responsible parties under the [Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980] and thus did not need EPA approval to take remedial action."[1]

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the opinion of the court. Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined.

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that Montana courts had jurisdiction to review the case, because the case was not brought under CERCLA. The chief justice wrote, "The landowners’ common law claims for nuisance, trespass, and strict liability therefore arise under Montana law and not under the Act. As a result, the Montana courts retain jurisdiction over this lawsuit."[1]

    However, the court ruled Montana was wrong by "holding that the landowners were not potentially responsible parties under the Act and therefore did not need EPA approval to take remedial action."[1]

    The chief justice wrote:

    “ The Montana Supreme Court erred in holding that the landowners were not potentially responsible parties under §122(e)(6) and therefore did not need to seek EPA approval. Montana law requires that 'an award of restoration damages actually . . . be used to repair the damaged property.' But such action cannot be taken in the absence of EPA approval. That approval process, if pursued, could ameliorate any conflict between the landowners’ restoration plan and EPA’s Superfund cleanup, just as Congress envisioned. (References omitted.)[5] ”
    —Chief Justice Roberts[1]

    Justice Alito

    Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. He joined the majority opinion except for Part II–B. Alito agreed that the landowners in the case were potentially responsible parties under CERCLA and, as a result, could not bring their case without EPA approval. Alito disagreed, however, with the majority's holding in Part II–B that "state courts have jurisdiction to entertain 'challenges' to EPA-approved CERCLA plans."[1]

    Justice Gorsuch

    Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. He joined the majority opinion except for Part III. Justice Thomas joined Gorsuch's opinion.

    Gorsuch disagreed with Part III, in which the justices held the Montana Supreme Court was wrong to hold that landowners were potentially responsible parties under CERCLA. Gorsuch wrote:

    “ Departing from CERCLA’s terms in this way transforms it from a law that supplements state environmental restoration efforts into one that prohibits them. Along the way, it strips away ancient common law rights from innocent landowners and forces them to suffer toxic waste in their backyards, playgrounds, and farms. Respectfully, that is not what the law was written to do; that is what it was written

    to prevent.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Gorsuch[1]

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Supreme Court of the United States, Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, decided April 20, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Montana Supreme Court, Atl. Richfield Co. v. Mont. Second Judicial Dist. Court, decided December 29, 2017
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Questions presented: Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian," accessed June 11, 2019
    4. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Petition for a writ of certiorari, Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian," accessed June 11, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed December 9, 2019
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Atlantic_Richfield_Co._v._Christian&oldid=8891227"