- Court: U.S. Supreme Court Certiorari Granted
- Area(s) of Law: Environmental Law
- Date Filed: June 10, 2019
- Case #: 17-1498
- Judge(s)/Court Below: 408 P.3d 515 (Mont. 2017)
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner, the current operator of the Anaconda Smelter site, an EPA Superfund site, has been working with the EPA to remediate environmental damage to the area. Petitioner has spent over $470 million in remedial measures. In 2008 landowners within the Superfund site sued Petitioner for five types of damages. Petitioner objected, arguing restoration damages would require work in excess of that already completed. Petitioner filed for summary judgment arguing the claim was a challenge to the EPA’s remedy and was barred jurisdictionally by CERCLA § 113 and, since landowners are always potentially responsible parties, that it was barred by § 122(e)(6). The United States filed amicus briefs arguing CERCLA preempts restoration claims because they are the kind CERCLA was intended to prevent. The trial court permitted Respondents to proceed. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding state tort remedies that conflict with EPA remedies are not a challenge barred by § 113(h). They also held § 122(e)(6) doesn’t apply because Respondents have never been treated as PRP’s and that CERCLA does not preempt state tort claims. Petitioners argue the decision below permits state tort suits to obstruct CERCLA cleanups under the EPA’S direction, which are already complex and costly. Petitioners assert that the decision below splits with several federal courts of appeals’ decisions interpreting CERCLA, that the decision ignores the plaint text and purpose of CERCLA, and that the questions presented are pertinent, recurring issues which require resolution.