Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian.
In Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, the Supreme Court addressed whether the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) precludes state courts from hearing claims related to restoration damages without EPA approval. The Court determined that landowners are potentially responsible parties under CERCLA, requiring them to seek EPA approval for their restoration plans. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian.
The Court held that the Montana Supreme Court erred in holding that the landowners were not potentially responsible parties under CERCLA and thus did not need EPA approval.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian
The case primarily deals with the limits of judicial review over agency decisions, particularly regarding the nonappealability of certain agency determinations.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Section 314(d) precludes judicial review of the agency's application of § 315(b)'s time prescription.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian
The case involves the interpretation of statutory provisions governing agency authority and the scope of agency decisions.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Congress designed inter partes review to weed out bad patent claims efficiently.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian that support the summary and concepts above.
"The Montana Supreme Court erred by holding that the landowners were not potentially responsible parties under the Act."
"The Act does not strip the Montana courts of jurisdiction over this lawsuit."
"The landowners are potentially responsible parties."
