Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

courts  of  jurisdiction  over  claims  brought  under  the  Act.
But it does not displace state court jurisdiction over claims 
brought under other sources of law.3 

Section 113(b) of the Act provides that “the United States
district courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over
all controversies arising under this chapter,” so state courts
lack  jurisdiction  over  such  actions.    42  U. S. C.  §9613(b). 
This case, however, does not “arise under” the Act.  The use 
of “arising under” in §113(b) echoes Congress’s more famil-
iar use of that phrase in granting federal courts jurisdiction
over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws,
or treaties of the United States.”  28 U. S. C. §1331.  In the 
mine run of cases, “[a] suit arises under the law that creates
the cause of action.”  American Well Works Co. v. Layne & 
Bowler  Co.,  241  U. S.  257,  260  (1916).4    The  landowners’ 
common law claims for nuisance, trespass, and strict liabil-
ity  therefore  arise  under  Montana  law  and  not  under  the 

—————— 

3 JUSTICE ALITO argues that this jurisdictional question “may turn out 
not to matter  in this case” because we remand for further proceedings
that may end the litigation.  Post, at 2 (opinion concurring in part and 
dissenting in part).  But Atlantic Richfield seeks more than a remand.  It 
contends  that  the  lawsuit  should  be  dismissed  because  the  Montana 
courts lack jurisdiction, and the Federal Government agrees.  The differ-
ence between outright dismissal and further proceedings matters.  We 
granted review of this issue and both parties have fully briefed and ar-
gued  it.  Simply  leaving  the  question  unanswered  at  this  point  would 
leave the parties in a state of uncertainty as to whether the litigation is
proceeding  in the  proper  forum.    We therefore  find  it  both  “necessary” 
and “prudent” to decide the issue.  Post, at 1. 

4 There is a “special and small category of cases” that originate in state
law yet still arise under federal law for purposes of federal question ju-
risdiction.  Gunn v. Minton, 568 U. S. 251, 258 (2013) (internal quotation 
marks omitted).  To qualify for this narrow exception, a state law claim
must  “necessarily  raise[ ]”  a  federal  issue,  among  other  requirements. 
Ibid.   No  element  of  the  landowners’  state  common  law  claims  neces-
sarily raises a federal issue.  Atlantic Richfield raises the Act as an af-
firmative defense, but “[f]ederal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an
actual or anticipated defense.”  Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U. S. 49, 60 
(2009).