Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian

For nearly a century, the Anaconda Copper Smelter in Butte, Montana contaminated over 300 square miles with arsenic and lead, leading to its designation as a Superfund site in 1983. In 2008, 98 landowners sued Atlantic Richfield Company in Montana state court, seeking restoration damages under state common law claims that exceeded the EPA-selected cleanup plan. Atlantic Richfield argued that CERCLA preempted these claims and that state courts lacked jurisdiction. On April 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, held that CERCLA does not deprive state courts of jurisdiction over state-law claims, but that landowner plaintiffs, as potentially responsible parties, are barred by CERCLA Section 122(e)(6) from implementing remedial action beyond EPA's plan without EPA approval.

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the Montana Supreme Court's decision. The Court held that CERCLA does not divest state courts of jurisdiction over state-law claims, but that the landowners, as current owners of a facility, qualify as potentially responsible parties under CERCLA and are therefore barred by Section 122(e)(6) from implementing remedial action beyond EPA's selected remedy without EPA approval.

The case presented two principal questions: (1) whether CERCLA strips state courts of jurisdiction over state-law claims seeking restoration damages related to a Superfund site; and (2) whether landowners who are potentially responsible parties under CERCLA must obtain EPA approval before undertaking remedial actions that exceed the EPA-selected remedy.

The decision clarified the interplay between CERCLA and state-law claims at Superfund sites, potentially increasing state-court litigation while reinforcing EPA's role as gatekeeper for cleanup decisions. It affirmed that state-law tort claims can proceed even within federal cleanup sites, but imposed a significant limitation by requiring EPA approval for PRP landowners seeking restoration remedies beyond the federal plan. The ruling has implications for the certainty and finality of Superfund cleanups, private-property rights, and the balance of state and federal authority in environmental remediation.