Opinion ID: 709549
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Application of Sec. 9613(h) and Due Process

Text: 71 Plaintiffs contend that the application of Sec. 9613(h) to their suit deprives them of due process of law by denying them their day in court. We disagree. 72 We have held on more than one occasion that application of Sec. 9613(h) is appropriate even if there is a possibility that plaintiffs' claims will never be heard in federal court. In McClellan the court recognized that: 73 [T]he application of Section [9613(h) ] may in some cases delay judicial review for years, if not permanently, and may result in irreparable harm to other important interests. Whatever its likelihood, such a possibility is for legislators, and not judges, to address. We must presume that Congress has already balanced all concerns.... 74 McClellan, 47 F.3d at 329 (quoting Boarhead Corp. v. Erickson, 923 F.2d 1011, 1023 (3d Cir.1991)); see also Razore, 66 F.3d at 239 (holding that courts cannot ignore the clear mandate of section [9613(h) ] even if there may never be a cleanup). As the district court noted in its opinion, courts have consistently held that Sec. 9613(h) does not give way even when human health is at issue. See Hanford Downwinders Coalition, Inc., 841 F.Supp. at 1062 (collecting cases). Simply put, this court may not give the appellants a day in court to which they are not entitled.