Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 45.0

10 

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. v. CHRISTIAN 

Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

ran everything.  And, let’s be honest, the implication here 
is that property owners cannot be trusted to clean up their 
lands without causing trouble (especially for Atlantic Rich-
field).  Nor, we are told, should Montanans worry so much:
The  restrictions  Atlantic  Richfield  proposes  aren’t  really 
that draconian because homeowners would still be free to 
do things like build sandboxes for their grandchildren (pro-
vided,  of  course,  they  don’t  scoop  out  too  much  arsenic  in
the process).

But, as in so many cases that come before this Court, the 
policy arguments here cut both ways.  Maybe paternalistic
central planning cannot tolerate  parallel state law efforts 
to  restore  state  lands.    But  maybe,  too,  good  government 
and  environmental  protection  would  be  better  served  if 
state  law  remedies  proceeded  alongside  federal  efforts. 
State and federal law enforcement usually work in just this
way,  complementing  rather  than  displacing  one  another.
And, anyway, how long would Atlantic Richfield have us en-
force what amounts to a federal easement requiring land-
owners  to  house  toxic  waste  on  their  lands?    The  govern-
ment has been on site since 1983; work supposedly finished 
around  the  landowners’  homes  in  2016;  the  completion  of 
“primary” cleanup efforts is “estimated” to happen by 2025.
So, yes, once a Superfund site is “delisted,” the restrictions
on potentially responsible parties fade away.  But this pro-
ject is well on its way to the half-century mark and still only 
a “preliminary” deadline lies on the horizon.  No one before 
us will even hazard a guess when the work will finish and 
a “delisting” might come.  On Atlantic Richfield’s view, gen-
erations have come and gone and more may follow before
the plaintiffs can clean their land.

The  real  problem,  of  course,  is  that  Congress,  not  this
Court, is supposed to make judgments between competing 
policy arguments like these.  And, as we’ve seen, Congress 
has offered its judgment repeatedly and clearly.  CERCLA