Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian (17-1498)

argument 17-1498

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 7 speakers 6 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central dispute in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian?

John G. Roberts 0:00

in case 17-1498, Atlantic Richfield v. Christian. Ms. Blatt?

Unknown 0:15

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. This case involves whether the hundreds of thousands of landowners on Superfund sites can bring state lawsuits to implement their own piecemeal hazardous waste cleanups. The answer should be no. CERCLA entrusts EPA to protect human health and the environment by developing a remedial plan that protects the whole community. Respondents are profoundly wrong that removing waste is always better than leaving it in place. Superfund sites contain extremely hazardous substances, lead, mercury, plutonium, to name a few. Excavation, transportation, and disposal of these substances is risky. not only to neighbors, but the millions of people who live next door to Superfund sites.

Unknown 1:05

Whether these risks are worth any benefits should be evaluated by EPA, not juries on an ad hoc basis. Since 2013, EPA has objected that Respondent's Restoration Remedy would thwart more than three decades of its efforts at the Anaconda site. including by digging up soil that EPA wants left undisturbed and by building miles of underground trenches that would affect an entire community's groundwater. This Court should reverse for three reasons. First, Section 113 bars respondents' challenge to EPA's remedy. Second, Section 122 bars respondents from undertaking any remedial actions absent EPA's authorization. And third, a restoration remedy is preempted. because it would require Atlantic Richfield to effectuate the very cleanup that federal law prohibits the company from doing on its own, and a restoration remedy would prevent EPA from carrying out its statutory mandate to implement comprehensive cleanups.

Elena Kagan 2:09

Ms. Plath, I've been trying to unpackage this case in my own mind. And I start with the language of the statute. I'm sorry, I interrupted. You finish it. No, we're good. Okay. I'm sorry.

Unknown 2:26

No.

Elena Kagan 2:27

I am trying to figure out, let's assume for the sake of argument, that the remedial plan that the State Court orders supplements rather than contradicts the EPA plan, that it was something in top of. I read the savings clauses to permit that. The savings clauses are very explicit that it's not displacing or intending to displace State law remedies for liability or for anything else. So if these plans supplement, why would this part of Montana law be preempted?

Unknown 3:21

So in terms of preemption, so it's quite emphatic to understand that Section 122E6 and the over 20 administrative orders impose both a floor and a ceiling on the type of cleanup. If I

Elena Kagan 3:35

disagree that it's a ceiling, if I think it's just a flaw, a floor,

Unknown 3:43

and

Elena Kagan 3:44

that the EPA has the power to decide whether any plan is can supplement its own, where does that leave this argument? If I believe that it's a floor only, not a ceiling, that the EPA has the right to establish when a plan will be a ceiling, where does that leave this case?

Unknown 4:16

Okay, so in terms of conflict preemption — So we know that EPA would absolutely have to change federal law, which it could, to approve their plan. So you are absolutely correct. I'm sorry. Federal law requires a specific action level and a specific amount of dirt that can be dug and that no wall can be built. At the moment. Yes, and EPA can change it. And this Court in Mensing said that courts do not withhold preemption based on the speculation that federal government may change the law. And the law would have to be — But it isn't the law, Ms. Blatt. It's the EPA's Superfund plan for this site. The specific things that you mentioned are not in the law. They are in the EPA's plan. And if the EPA said, we permit what the landowners —

Unknown 5:13

The further cleanup the landowners want, we permit it or we permit what they want with certain modifications. If EPA says yes, then there's no preemption that I could see that would be involved in this case. So that's not correct because when you said plan, and maybe I misspoke, the law is not a U.S. code law. It's a binding administrative order where Atlantic Ridgefield would incur massive penalties every day if it violated.