Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 34

8 

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. v. CHRISTIAN 

Opinion of ALITO, J. 

the district courts cannot entertain the same claims.  And 
not only that.  Because §113(b)’s grant of jurisdiction to the
federal district courts is exclusive, the state courts cannot 
entertain those claims either. 

It  is  hard  to  fathom  why  Congress  might  have  wanted 
such a scheme.  Congress might have wanted all the state-
law claims covered by §113(b) to be heard exclusively in fed-
eral court in order to prevent state courts and juries from
unduly favoring home-state interests.  But having granted
the federal district courts jurisdiction to hear these claims
in §113(b), why would Congress take away that jurisdiction
in cases where the parties happen not to be diverse?  And 
why would Congress go further and prevent the state courts
from hearing these claims?  The Government and petitioner
provide no answer, and none is apparent. 

III 
The Court gives three reasons for resolving the question 
of  state-court  jurisdiction.    See  ante,  at  9,  n. 3.    None  is 
compelling.

First,  the  Court  explains  that  “Atlantic  Richfield  seeks
more than a remand,” namely, it seeks a remand with in-
structions to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds.  Ibid.  But 
Atlantic Richfield presented its §122(e)(6) theory as an al-
ternate ground for reversal, and has prevailed on that ba-
sis.  As Atlantic Richfield’s counsel stated at argument, the
§122(e)(6)  ruling  is  “sufficient  to  resolve  the  case.”    Tr.  of 
Oral Arg. 17–18. 

Second, the Court says, “leaving the [§113] question un-
answered  . . .  would  leave  the  parties  in  a  state  of  uncer-
tainty.”  Ante, at 9, n. 3.  But, as described above, there ap-
pears to be a slim chance that this case will, at least in its 
current state, “procee[d]” in the Montana courts.  Ibid. 

—————— 
standards).”  §113(h).