Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 15

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

courts from hearing a category of cases in §113(b) by strip-
ping  federal  courts  of  jurisdiction  over  those  cases  in 
§113(h).  And if that were Congress’s goal, it would be hard 
to imagine a more oblique way of  achieving it.  Often the 
simplest  explanation  is  the  best:  Section  113(b)  deprives
state  courts  of  jurisdiction  over  cases  “arising  under”  the
Act—just as it says—while §113(h) deprives federal courts
of jurisdiction over certain “challenges” to Superfund reme-
dial actions—just as it says.

Second, the company’s argument does not account for the
exception in §113(h) for federal courts sitting in diversity.
Section 113(h) permits federal courts in diversity cases to 
entertain state law claims regardless of whether they are 
challenges  to  cleanup  plans.    See  DePue  v.  Exxon  Mobil 
Corp., 537 F. 3d 775, 784 (CA7 2008).  But Atlantic Rich-
field does not even try to explain why the Act would permit 
such state law claims to proceed in federal court, but not in 
state court.  The Act permits federal courts and state courts 
alike to entertain state law claims, including challenges to
cleanups.

That leads us to the third difficulty with Atlantic Rich-
field’s argument.  We have recognized a “deeply rooted pre-
sumption  in  favor  of  concurrent  state  court  jurisdiction”
over federal claims.  Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U. S. 455, 458– 
459 (1990).  Only an “explicit statutory directive,” an “un-
mistakable implication from legislative history,” or “a clear 
incompatibility between state-court jurisdiction and federal 
interests” can displace this presumption.  Id., at 460.  Ex-
plicit, unmistakable, and clear are not words that describe
Atlantic  Richfield’s  knotty  interpretation  of  §§113(b) 
and (h).

It would be one thing for Atlantic Richfield to try to sur-
mount the clear statement rule that applies to the uncom-
mon, but not unprecedented, step of stripping state courts 
of jurisdiction over federal claims.  But Atlantic Richfield’s 
position requires a more ambitious step: Congress stripping