Forum

U.S. Supreme Court

Case Status

Decided

Docket Number

07-1601

Term

2008 Term

Oral Argument Date

February 24, 2009

Share

Questions Presented

In Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, et al. v. U.S., et al.:

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by reversing the district court’s reasonable apportionment of responsibility under CERCLA, and by adopting a standard of review and proof requirements that depart from common law principles and conflict with decisions of other circuits.

In Shell Oil Company v. U.S., et al.:

1. Whether liability for “arranging” for disposal of hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3), may be imposed upon a manufacturer who merely sells and ships, by common carrier, a commercially useful product, transferring ownership and control to a purchaser who then causes contamination involving that product.

2. Whether joint and several liability may be imposed upon several potentially responsible parties under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), even where a district court finds an objectively reasonable basis for divisibility that would suffice at common law.

Case Updates

Supreme Court decides arranger liability and apportionment of damages under CERCLA

May 04, 2009

The Supreme Court held that companies that sell chemicals in the ordinary course of business are not liable under CERCLA (Superfund Act) for the disposal costs of the substances on the theory that the sellers somehow “arranged” for the products' disposal. The Court also held that, where a defendant shows that it is reasonable to do so, courts may apportion liability for cleanup costs rather than assign joint and several liability to the parties.

U.S. Chamber files amicus brief

November 24, 2008

NCLC urged the Supreme Court to decide that companies that sell chemicals in the ordinary course of business should not be held liable under CERCLA or the Superfund Act for the disposal costs of the substances on the theory that the sellers somehow “arranged” for the products’ disposal. NCLC also argued that the Ninth Circuit improperly imposed heightened evidentiary standards on defendants who seek to apportion liability under the act.

This case is consolidated with Shell Oil Company v. U.S., et al.

Amicus brief supporting cert. filed 7/25/08. Cert. granted 10/1/08. Amicus brief on the merits filed 11/24/08. Decided 5/4/09.

Case Documents

Search