This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner (Atlantic Richfield Company), according to Petitioner (Atlantic Richfield Company), this case concerns whether landowners on Superfund sites can bring state lawsuits to implement their own piecemeal hazardous‑waste cleanups.
According to Petitioner (Atlantic Richfield Company), according to Petitioner (Atlantic Richfield Company), the petitioner argues that the answer to that question should be no.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner (Atlantic Richfield Company), according to Petitioner (Atlantic Richfield Company), the central legal question is whether the hundreds of thousands of landowners on Superfund sites may bring state lawsuits to implement their own piecemeal hazardous‑waste cleanups.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Atlantic Richfield Company)
According to Petitioner (Atlantic Richfield Company), according to Petitioner (Atlantic Richfield Company), section 113 bars the respondents’ challenge to EPA’s remedy.
According to Petitioner (Atlantic Richfield Company), according to Petitioner (Atlantic Richfield Company), section 122 bars respondents from undertaking any remedial actions absent EPA authorization.
According to Petitioner (Atlantic Richfield Company), according to Petitioner (Atlantic Richfield Company), a restoration remedy is pre‑empted because it would require Atlantic Richfield to effectuate a cleanup that federal law prohibits the company from doing on its own, and such a remedy would prevent the EPA from carrying out its statutory mandate to implement comprehensive cleanups.
Respondent (Gregory A. Christian)
According to Mr. Michel, respondents are potentially responsible parties (PRPs) who need EPA authorization to undertake remedial action, and without that authorization their claim fails.
According to MR. PALMORE, EPA is the agency that can enforce the law at the site, and the question is whether private landowners should be subject to a permanent, sweeping agency authority over their property.
According to MR. PALMORE, there is no evidence that Congress intended the obscure portion of Section 122 concerning settlements to give the EPA such vast, perpetual control over private property.
United States (Amicus Curiae)
According to United States (amicus curiae), according to United States (amicus curiae), the statute contains savings clauses, and the United States does not dispute that respondents can pursue money‑damages claims under state law, nuisance, tort, and related theories that do not challenge the EPA’s remedy.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kagan asked whether the statute would give the EPA authority over the issue being discussed.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether the plan presented was both the floor and the ceiling of the respondents’ position.
Justice Sotomayor followed up by asking whether the remedy required remediation regardless of EPA approval.
Justice Ginsburg asked what the answer would be to the question previously posed to Ms. Blatt.
According to Justice KAVANAUGH, justice Kavanagh asked how a disagreement with EPA’s early designation of all landowners as PRPs would be resolved.
Justice Kagan followed up asking whether it would be appropriate for EPA to designate PRPs or for there to be a strong presumption that EPA’s designation creates PRP status.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether a PRP would be obligated to seek EPA permission before taking action.
Justice Gorsuch asked for specifics about what EPA could do to protect its interests in the scenario.
- [1] 8aa8b5962be9eef07903-r1-e58893b1e61686fb.pdf, p. 10
- [2] 8aa8b5962be9eef07903-r1-e58893b1e61686fb.pdf, p. 23
- [3] 8aa8b5962be9eef07903-r1-e58893b1e61686fb.pdf, p. 24
- [4] 8aa8b5962be9eef07903-r1-e58893b1e61686fb.pdf, p. 30
- [5] 8aa8b5962be9eef07903-r1-e58893b1e61686fb.pdf, p. 47
- [6] 8aa8b5962be9eef07903-r1-e58893b1e61686fb.pdf, p. 49
- [7] 8aa8b5962be9eef07903-r1-e58893b1e61686fb.pdf, p. 54
- [8] 8aa8b5962be9eef07903-r1-e58893b1e61686fb.pdf, p. 58
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Petitioner (Atlantic Richfield Company), section 122 bars respondents from undertaking remedial actions without EPA authorization, potentially limiting landowners’ ability to conduct independent cleanups.
Landowners of land that contains hazardous substances may be classified as potentially responsible parties.
According to MR. PALMORE, the case underscores a tension between private property owners of polluted Superfund sites and the federal government’s authority to enforce comprehensive cleanups.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 8aa8b5962be9eef07903-r1-e58893b1e61686fb.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.