Opinion analysis: Court’s narrow reading of Superfund’s preemption provision leaves victims of toxic exposure without legal recourse : SCOTUSblog

Bob Percival - a leading voice on environmental justice - nails it.  Almost every trip to the U.S. Supreme Court is another nail in the coffin for consumers seeking justice. - gwc

Opinion analysis: Court’s narrow reading of Superfund’s preemption provision leaves victims of toxic exposure without legal recourse : SCOTUSblog:

by Robert Percival // University of Maryland



Yesterday in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, the Court ruled – by a vote of seven to two –that the provision of the federal Superfund law (the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA) that tolls state statutes of limitations until after victims of toxic exposure have discovered their harm, 42 U.S.C. § 9658, does not apply to state statutes of repose. Statutes of repose set deadlines on the filing of litigation that do not turn on when harm is first discovered. 

The decision rested on the majority’s interpretation of the statutory language of CERCLA, which refers only to “statutes of limitations” and not “statutes of repose.” Even though two of the Justices in the majority admitted at oral argument that they were not aware until recently of any distinction between the two, the majority concluded that Congress had been aware of the distinction when it amended CERCLA in 1986. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer dissented, finding that Congress had implicitly preempted statutes of repose because they interfere with the congressional purpose of preserving legal recourse for victims of toxic exposures that cause harm with long latency periods.

'via Blog this'