Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided April 20, 2020
Full case name	Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian
Docket no.	17-1498
Citations	590 U.S. ___ ( more )
Holding
Landowners are "potentially responsible parties" under CERCLA and therefore need approval from the EPA before taking any action to restore their properties related to a Superfund site.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
Majority	Roberts
Concur/dissent	Alito
Concur/dissent	Grosuch, joined by Thomas
Laws applied
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, 590 U.S. ___(2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that landowners are "potentially responsible parties" under CERCLA and therefore need approval from the EPA before taking any action to restore their properties related to a Superfund site. ^{[1] [2]}

Background

For nearly a century, the Anaconda Copper Smelter in Butte, Montana contaminated an area of over 300 square miles with arsenic and lead. Since the 1980s, the United States Environmental Protection Agency worked with the current owner of the now-closed smelter, Atlantic Richfield Company, to implement a cleanup plan for a remediation expected to continue through 2025. A group of 98 landowners sued Atlantic Richfield in Montana state court for common law nuisance, trespass, and strict liability, seeking restoration damages, which Montana law requires to be spent on property rehabilitation. The landowners' proposed plan exceeded the measures found necessary to protect human health and the environment by EPA. The trial court granted summary judgment to the landowners on the issue of whether the Act precluded their restoration damages claim and allowed the lawsuit to continue. After granting a writ of supervisory control, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Atlantic Richfield’s argument that §113 stripped the Montana courts of jurisdiction over the landowners' claim and concluding that the landowners were not potentially responsible parties (or PRPs) prohibited from taking remedial action without EPA approval under §122(e)(6). ^[1]

References

1. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian,No. 17-1498 , 590 U.S. ___(2020).
2. Howe, Amy (April 20, 2020). "Opinion analysis: Broad consensus on a narrow win for business in Superfund dispute". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 10, 2025.

External links

• Text of Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian,No. 17-1498, 590 U.S. ___(2020) is available from: Justia

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain .