October Term 2013 · Docket 13-339
Does federal law override state time limits for toxic tort claims?
Parties dispute whether a federal statute extends state deadlines for filing toxic tort lawsuits.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — 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.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Justice Ginsburg warned that prevailing might encourage states to enact stricter repose statutes.
Justice Kagan questioned why Congress would not also remove the statute of repose.
advocate_contention
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 47-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 47-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 39-1 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 39-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of a federal environmental law provision. It asks if that provision changes how states calculate filing deadlines for injury claims.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 47-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 47-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 29-37
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 23, 2014.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 23-25
What each side wants
CTS wants the Court to hold that the federal statute only changes the start date for state filing deadlines.
Waldburger wants the Court to hold that the federal statute extends the total time available to file suit.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 47-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 47-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 29-37
What each side says
CTS argues the statute is a federalism compromise that leaves state repose limits untouched.
Waldburger argues the statute surgically modifies state tort actions by changing the commencement date for the time period.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 47-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 47-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 29-37
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked when the statute was enacted and what it was.
Justice Ginsburg asked how many states have such statutes of repose.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 39-1 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 39-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-11
Why it matters
This dispute determines how long injured parties have to sue polluters. It affects the balance between federal environmental goals and state procedural rules. It shapes the rights of victims seeking compensation for toxic exposure.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 47-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 47-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 29-37
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 Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 39-1 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 39-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-11
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 47-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 47-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 47-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 47-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 29-37
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.