Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 14

10 

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. v. CHRISTIAN 

Opinion of the Court 

Act.    As  a  result,  the  Montana  courts  retain  jurisdiction
over this lawsuit, notwithstanding the channeling of Super-
fund claims to federal courts in §113(b).5 

Atlantic  Richfield  takes  a  different  view,  arguing  that
§113(h) implicitly broadens the scope of actions precluded 
from state court jurisdiction under §113(b).  Section 113(h)
states that “[n]o Federal court shall have jurisdiction under 
Federal law other than under section 1332 of title 28 (relat-
ing to diversity of citizenship jurisdiction) . . . to review any 
challenges  to  removal  or  remedial  action”  selected  under 
the Act.  42 U. S. C. §9613(h). 

The  company’s  argument  proceeds  in  five  steps.  Step
one: Section 113(h) removes federal court jurisdiction over 
all cleanup challenges, regardless of whether they originate 
in federal or state law (except for when the court is sitting
in diversity).  Step two: Section 113(h) can only remove ju-
risdiction  that  §113(b)  provides  in  the  first  place.  Step 
three: Section 113(b) thus provides federal courts jurisdic-
tion  over  all  cleanup  challenges,  whether  brought  under 
federal or state law.  Step four: The grant of jurisdiction to
federal courts in §113(b) is exclusive to federal courts.  Step
five: State courts thus do not have jurisdiction over cleanup 
challenges.

This interpretation faces several insurmountable obsta-
cles.  First,  by  its  own  terms,  §113(h)  speaks  of  “Federal 
court[s],” not state courts.  There is no textual basis for At-
lantic  Richfield’s  argument  that  Congress  precluded  state 
—————— 

5 Section 113(b) specifies that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction
“without regard to the citizenship of the parties or the amount in contro-
versy.”  42 U. S. C. §9613(b).  This is somewhat redundant because all 
actions that “arise under” the Act necessarily satisfy federal question ju-
risdiction.  But “[s]ometimes the better overall reading of the statute con-
tains  some  redundancy.”  Rimini  Street,  Inc.  v.  Oracle  USA,  Inc.,  586 
U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 11).  We find it much more likely that 
Congress employed a belt and suspenders approach to make sure that 
all CERCLA lawsuits are routed to federal court than that Congress in-
tended the reference to federal courts in §113(h) to affect state courts.