Environmental Law — preemption

Listen to this article

U.S. Supreme Court

Civil

Environmental Law — preemption

42 U.S.C. 9658 does not pre-empt state statutes of repose.

The text and structure of §9658 resolve this case. Under that provision, pre-emption is characterized as an “[e]xception,” §9658(a)(1), to the regular rule that the “the statute of limitations established under State law” applies. The “applicable limitations period,” the “commencement date” of which is subject to pre-emption, is defined as “the period specified in a statute of limitations.” §9658(b)(2). That term appears four times, and “statute of repose” does not appear at all. While it is apparent from the historical development of the two terms that their general usage has not always been precise, their distinction was well enough established to be reflected in the 1982 Study Group Report that guided §9658’s enactment, acknowledged the distinction, and urged the repeal of both types of statutes. Because that distinction is not similarly reflected in §9658, it is proper to conclude that Congress did not intend to preempt statutes of repose.

723 F.3d 434, reversed.

13-339 CTS Corp. v. Waldburger

Kennedy, J.; Scalia, J., concurring; Ginsburg, J., dissenting.