This CLE course will discuss the latest key appellate and Supreme Court CERCLA decisions, provide insights into lessons from the courts for environmental counsel and their clients going forward, and offer best practices for handling CERCLA issues.
Counsel must be up to date and understand the significant developments over the past year from federal court rulings. Further, counsel must follow the decisions by the administration that have affected the likelihood of CERCLA suits.
Recent rulings also conclude that federal district courts have an independent obligation to scrutinize CERCLA settlement terms rather than giving full deference to the parties. Under this standard, courts must independently examine the terms of a consent decree by comparing "the proportion of total projected costs to be paid by the [settling parties] with the proportion of liability attributable to them."
Further, several years after the landmark Supreme Court decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (2009), federal courts of appeal and district courts continue to clarify the circumstances in which a person is liable as an "arranger" under CERCLA for arranging for the disposal of hazardous substances.
While not itself a CERCLA decision, the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which put an end to Chevron deference, has already jeopardized the EPA's rule designating certain PFAS compounds as "hazardous substances" under CERCLA. The rule is currently facing a court challenge from industry trade associations.
Listen as our panel of environmental attorneys analyzes the latest and most important federal court CERCLA decisions. The panel will provide insight into what those decisions mean going forward and offer best practices for handling CERCLA issues.
