Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

4 

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. v. CHRISTIAN 

Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

that even the Court today does not invoke as limits on re-
covery  here.  §9659(h).   Three  times  Congress  made  its 
point as plainly as anyone might.

So  how  does  Atlantic  Richfield  seek  to  transform 
CERCLA from a tool to aid cleanups into a ban on them? 
The company has to point to something in the statutory text 
that trumps these many provisions and preempts the land-
owners’ right to use state law to restore their lands.  After 
all, merely “[i]nvoking some brooding federal interest or ap-
pealing  to  a  judicial  policy  preference  should  never  be 
enough to win preemption of a state law”; instead, a party
like  Atlantic  Richfield  seeking  to  displace  state  law  must
identify “ ‘a constitutional text or a federal statute’ that does
the  displacing.”  Virginia  Uranium,  Inc.  v.  Warren,  587 
U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (opinion of GORSUCH, J.) (slip op., at 3)
(quoting Puerto Rico Dept. of Consumer Affairs v. ISLA Pe-
troleum Corp., 485 U. S. 495, 503 (1988)). 

In  answer,  Atlantic  Richfield  directs  our  attention  to 
§122(e)(6).  It’s  a  provision  buried  in  a  section  captioned 
“Settlements.”  The section outlines the process private par-
ties  must  follow  to  negotiate  a  settlement  and  release  of 
CERCLA liability with the federal government.  Subsection 
(e)(6)  bears  the  title  “Inconsistent  response  action”  and
states  that,  “[w]hen  either  the  President,  or  a  potentially 
responsible  party  pursuant  to  an  administrative  order  or 
consent decree under this chapter, has initiated a remedial 
investigation and feasibility study for a particular facility 
under  this  chapter,  no  potentially  responsible  party  may
undertake  any  remedial  action  at  the  facility  unless  such
remedial action has been authorized by the President.”  42 
U. S. C. §9622(e)(6).  So even read for all its worth, this pro-
vision only bars those “potentially responsible” to the fed-
eral  government  from  initiating  cleanup  efforts  without 
prior approval.  To get where it needs to go, Atlantic Rich-
field must find some way to label the innocent landowners
here  “potentially  responsible  part[ies]”  on  the  hook  for