Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, 140 S. Ct. 1335

Background

The Anaconda Copper Smelter contaminated over 300 square miles near Butte, MT with arsenic and lead; EPA designated the area a Superfund site in 1983 and has managed a long-term remedial program.
Ninety-eight landowners sued Atlantic Richfield in Montana state court (trespass, nuisance, strict liability), seeking restoration damages that would fund remediation beyond EPA's selected remedies.
EPA’s Record of Decision prescribed cleanup levels and methods the agency deemed "protective of human health and the environment;" the landowners proposed stricter, costlier measures (e.g., lower arsenic thresholds, deeper excavation, groundwater barrier).
Montana trial court and Montana Supreme Court allowed the restoration-damages claim to proceed, finding state courts retained jurisdiction and (initially) that landowners were not "potentially responsible parties" (PRPs) requiring EPA approval.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide (1) whether CERCLA precludes state-court jurisdiction over the landowners’ restoration claim and (2) whether the landowners are PRPs under 42 U.S.C. § 9622(e)(6) and thus must obtain EPA approval before undertaking remedial action.
The Supreme Court held: state courts have jurisdiction over state-law restoration claims, but the landowners qualify as PRPs under CERCLA and therefore must obtain EPA authorization before undertaking remedial action covered by § 122(e)(6); the Montana Supreme Court’s judgment was affirmed in part and vacated in part and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the Montana Supreme Court’s supervisory-writ decision	Landowners: writ decision is final reviewable judgment	Atlantic Richfield: not final because case proceeds to trial	Court: has jurisdiction—Montana supervisory writ constitutes a final judgment for review
Whether CERCLA § 113(b)/(h) strips Montana courts of jurisdiction over state-law restoration-damages claims	Landowners: claim arises under Montana law, not CERCLA, so state courts retain jurisdiction	Atlantic Richfield/Govt: § 113(h) limits review of challenges to remedial actions and thus divests state courts too	Court: state courts retain jurisdiction; § 113(b) removes jurisdiction only for suits that "arise under" CERCLA; § 113(h) limits federal court review but does not implicitly strip state courts of their adjudicatory power
Whether landowners are "potentially responsible parties" under § 122(e)(6) (requiring EPA authorization before remedial action)	Landowners: limitations, EPA non‑enforcement policy, or contiguous‑owner exception mean they are not PRPs	Atlantic Richfield/Govt: owners of contaminated property fall within § 107(a) covered persons and thus are PRPs subject to § 122(e)(6)	Court: landowners are PRPs—owners of property where hazardous substances have "come to be located" fall within § 107(a); § 122(e)(6) therefore bars remedial action by them without EPA authorization
Whether statutory defenses (statute of limitations, EPA policy not to sue residential owners, contiguous‑owner exception) exempt landowners from PRP status	Landowners: § 113(g)(2)(B) limitations, EPA policy, or § 107(q) contiguous-owner rules remove PRP effect	Atlantic Richfield/Govt: these do not alter statutory definition of PRP; contiguous-owner criteria not satisfied	Court: limitations and EPA enforcement choices do not erase PRP status; contiguous‑owner exception has multiple requirements that plaintiffs failed to meet; EPA policy/not providing settlement notice does not change statutory PRP classification

Key Cases Cited

Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (general purpose of Superfund statute and remedial goals)
CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 573 U.S. 1 (statutory purpose to ensure timely cleanup and allocation of costs)
American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257 (a suit "arises under" the law that creates the cause of action)
Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (presumption in favor of concurrent state-court jurisdiction; displacement requires clear statement)
United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (discussing § 107(a) categories of covered persons)
Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U.S. 157 (interpretation of § 107(a) liability scheme)
Fisher v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. of Mont., 424 U.S. 382 (Montana supervisory-writ proceedings are reviewable as final judgments)
Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., 531 U.S. 457 (canon against finding major regulatory changes hidden in ancillary provisions)