Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian

U.S. Supreme Court

Question(s) Presented

1. Whether a common-law claim for restoration seeking clean-up 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.

Tab Group

Merits Stage

U.S. Chamber urges U.S. Supreme Court to hold the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA,” also known as Superfund) prevents state tort claims that seek to impose remedies that challenge EPA approved cleanup plans

August 28, 2019

Click here to view the amicus brief filed jointly by the U.S. Chamber, National Association of Manufacturers, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, National Mining Association, American Petroleum Institute, and Superfund Settlements Project. Previously, the U.S. Chamber also filed an amicus brief supporting the cert. petition.

Aaron M. Streett and J. Mark Little of Baker Botts L.L.P. served as co-counsel for the amici.

Petition Stage

Cert. petition granted

June 10, 2019

The Supreme Court will determine whether the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (also known as Superfund) preempts state law claims for additional cleanup on remediated sites. The Montana Supreme Court allowed private plaintiffs to bring state law tort claims to force remedies beyond what EPA deemed necessary. This would disrupt millions of dollars in cleanup actions that were performed under EPA oversight, and undermine the liability shield afforded to parties who settle Superfund suits with the government.

The U.S. Chamber led a coalition amicus brief urging the Court to take this case. The Solicitor General recommended that the Court deny the petition, but the Court rejected that recommendation.