October Term 2008 · Docket 07-1601

Does a buyer who never touches hazardous waste pay cleanup costs?

Burlington Northern argues it owes no cleanup costs because it never handled the waste. The government argues the buyer pays for all disposal.

Official caption
Burlington N. & S.F.R. Co. v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Ms. Sullivan argued the lower court ignored statutory language.

    Ms. Sullivan claimed the buyer had an attenuated connection to harm.

    Mr. Stewart argued for arranger liability under the statute.

    Ms. Mahoney cited the Restatement to support apportionment standards.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on who pays for hazardous waste cleanup. One side claims the buyer is liable. The other side claims only the handler is liable.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 24, 2009.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Burlington Northern wants the Court to limit liability to those who handle waste.

The United States wants the Court to hold buyers liable for all cleanup costs.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Burlington Northern argues the statute requires a direct connection to the harm.

The United States argues the buyer controls the waste disposal process.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked if ownership transfer changes liability.

Justice Kennedy asked if a driver dumping waste creates liability.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines who pays for hazardous waste cleanup. It determines financial responsibility for industrial pollution. It affects how companies manage waste disposal contracts.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON