Term: 2019
Docket: 17-1498
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian
- Pro
17-1498 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. V. CHRISTIAN DECISION BELOW: 408 P.3d 515 CERT. GRANTED 6/10/2019 QUESTION PRESENTED: In a divided decision that conflicts with decisions of federal courts of appeals nationwide, the Supreme Court of Montana held that landowners can pursue common-law claims for "restoration" requiring environmental cleanups at Superfund sites that directly conflict with EPA-ordered cleanups at these sites. The Montana court reached that result for one of the largest, oldest, and most expensive Superfund sites in the country, the Anaconda Smelter site. The court ignored EPA's views that the Superfund statute-the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)-barred the restoration claims and that plaintiffs' preferred remedies would hurt the environment. The state court's holding throws remediation efforts at Anaconda and other massive sites into chaos and opens the door for thousands of private individuals to select and impose their own remedies at CERCLA sites at a potential cost of many millions of dollars per site. The questions presented are: 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. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: OP 16-0555
In the case of Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, 2019, residents of a Montana town filed suit against Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), seeking restoration damages for harm caused by ARCO's copper smelting operations that contaminated their properties with arsenic and lead. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of ARCO on two key issues: first, it held that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) does not strip state courts from hearing claims for additional cleanup; secondly, it found that landowners are potentially responsible parties under CERCLA even if they did not cause or contribute to contamination. However, these "potentially responsible parties" must seek EPA approval before taking remedial action beyond what the EPA has already planned.
In the dissenting opinion for Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, argued that the Supreme Court should not have heard the case at all because it was a state law claim and there were no federal issues involved. They contended that Montana's laws allowed landowners to seek additional cleanup efforts beyond what EPA required without needing EPA’s prior approval. The justices believed this did not conflict with or frustrate CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) objectives as majority suggested but rather complemented them since both aimed at promoting environmental restoration. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "potentially responsible parties" under CERCLA arguing that homeowners who merely inherited polluted lands shouldn't be treated in same way as original polluters are.
