Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

2 

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. v. CHRISTIAN 

Opinion of ALITO, J. 

blessing.  And because the EPA has submitted multiple fil-
ings  indicating  that  it  believes  that  the  landowners’  plan
presents  serious  environmental  risks,  it  is  likely  that  the 
EPA will not approve that plan, and the case will then die. 
If that happens, the question of the state courts’ jurisdiction
will be academic. 

Alternatively, if the EPA approves the landowners’ plan,
either in full or to a degree that they find satisfactory, they
may not wish to press this litigation.  And if they do choose
to go forward, the question of state-court jurisdiction can be 
decided at that time. 

For these reasons, there is no need to reach out and de-
cide the question now,1 and there are good reasons not to do 
so.  While the question of state-court jurisdiction may turn
out not to matter in this case, that question may have im-
portant implications in other cases.  Specifically, if the fears
expressed by the Government materialize, state courts and 
juries,  eager  to  serve  local  interests,  may  disregard  the
EPA’s  expert  judgment  regarding  the  best  plan  for  a
CERCLA site and may mandate relief that exacerbates en-
vironmental problems.  See Brief for United States as Ami-
cus  Curiae  20–22,  29–30;  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  72a–74a. 
Thus,  much  is  potentially  at  stake,  and  the  question 
whether CERCLA allows state courts to entertain suits like 
the one in this case depends on the interpretation of devil-
ishly difficult statutory provisions, CERCLA §§113(b) and 
(h), 42 U. S. C. §§9613(b) and (h). 

With much at stake, we should be confident that our an-
swer  is  correct,  and  we  have  no  basis  for  such  confidence 

—————— 

1 We may not decide the merits of a case without assuring ourselves 
that we have jurisdiction, Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 
523 U. S. 83, 94–95 (1998), but nothing requires us to decide whether the 
Montana courts have jurisdiction before remanding, see S. Shapiro et al., 
Supreme  Court  Practice  §3.26,  p. 3–94  (11th  ed.  2019);  cf.  Andresen  v. 
Maryland, 427 U. S. 463, 469, n. 4 (1976) (declining to address question
presented “does not, of course, affect our jurisdiction”).