Today, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger et al., No.13-339 (June 9, 2014) (slip op.) [link], in which it held that CERCLA section 309, 42 U.S.C. § 9658, does not preempt statutes of repose, reversing the Fourth Circuit.  Section 9658(a) preempts state law statutes of limitation for personal injury and property damage claims related to the release of a hazardous substance.  Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, reaffirmed the oft-repeated “presumption against preemption” in reasoning that Section 9658 does not preempt state statutes of repose.  Statutes of limitations bar claims after a specified period of time based on when the claim accrued, whereas statutes of repose bar suits brought after a specified time since the defendant acted, regardless of whether the plaintiff has discovered the resulting injury.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Finds that CERCLA Does Not Preempt Statutes of Repose

An injunction in Robinson Township v. Pa PUC on April 11 and a federal Executive Order on April 13 raise the question of which government ought to be the primary regulator of new natural gas development. David Mandelbaum’s Pennsylvania Law Weekly column, Preemption and Natural Gas Development: Who is the Decider?, 35 PLW 404 (May 1, 2012), explores the issue.

Continue Reading Preemption and Natural Gas Development: Who is the Decider?