Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 16

12 

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. v. CHRISTIAN 

Opinion of the Court 

state courts of jurisdiction to hear their own state claims. 
We  would  not  expect  Congress  to  take  such  an  extraordi-
nary  step  by  implication.  Yet  the  only  provision  Atlantic
Richfield  invokes  addresses  “[f]ederal  court[s]”  without
even  mentioning  state  courts,  let  alone  stripping  those
courts of jurisdiction to hear state law claims.  42 U. S. C. 
§9613(h).

Finally,  the  Government,  supporting  Atlantic  Richfield, 
emphasizes  that  the  opening  clause  of  §113(b)  excepts 
§113(h) from its application.  See 42 U. S. C. §9613(b) (“Ex-
cept  as  provided  in  subsections  (a)  and  (h)  of  this  section 
. . . .”).  According to the Government, because “exceptions
must  by  definition  be  narrower  than  the  corresponding 
rule,”  all  challenges  to  remedial  plans  under  §113(h)—
whether based in federal or state law—must “arise under” 
the Act for purposes of §113(b).  Brief for United States as 
Amicus Curiae 25. 

We reject the premise and with it the conclusion.  “Thou-
sands of statutory provisions use the phrase ‘except as pro-
vided in . . . ’ followed by a cross-reference in order to indi-
cate  that  one  rule  should  prevail  over  another  in  any
circumstance in which the two conflict.”  Cyan, Inc. v. Bea-
ver County Employees Retirement Fund, 583 U. S. ___, ___ 
(2018) (slip op., at 9).  Such clauses explain what happens
in the case of a clash, but they do not otherwise expand or 
contract  the  scope  of  either  provision  by  implication.    Cf. 
NLRB  v.  SW  General,  Inc.,  580  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2017)  (slip 
op., at 11) (explaining the same principle for “notwithstand-
ing” clauses).

The  actions  referred  to  in  §113(h)  do  not  fall  entirely 
within §113(b).  Challenges to remedial actions under fed-
eral statutes other than the Act, for example, are precluded 
by §113(h) but do not fall within §113(b).  To cite another 
example, §113(h) addresses state law challenges to cleanup 
plans  in  federal  court,  although  those  actions  also  do  not