Pollution lawsuit deadlines
CTS v. Waldburger
In brief
The Supreme Court overturned the Fourth Circuit’s judgment in CTS’s dispute with North Carolina residents.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 7-2 · June 9, 2014 · Opinion by Justice Scalia
- What it’s about
- Peter Waldburger and other North Carolina residents’ dispute with CTS Corporation concerned whether CERCLA, a federal environmental law, overrides state deadlines that bar pollution-injury lawsuits after a set time, even if an injury is discovered later (statutes of repose).
- Who it affects
- The Fourth Circuit’s judgment no longer stands in CTS’s dispute with these North Carolina residents.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court overturned the Fourth Circuit and ruled that CERCLA does not override those deadlines.
The dispute involved CERCLA, a federal law about hazardous-waste pollution, and a North Carolina rule setting a 10-year limit on certain injury claims.
Question presented
Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit correctly interpret CERCLA to apply to statutes of repose as well as to statutes of limitations?
What the Court decided
Holding
The judgment is reversed. 723 F. 3d 434, reversed.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
Justice Scalia, writing separately, said the federal law covers deadlines that limit when a suit can be filed, but not fixed cutoffs that bar suits after a set number of years. He agreed with the judgment for different reasons.
The vote
From the opinions
“The question presented is whether a federal statute on the timeliness of suits for harm caused by environmental contamination, 42 U. S. C. §9658, preempts North Carolina’s 10-year repose provision.”
What's next
The Supreme Court has finished its review; no further step is specified.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Waldburger
More questions
- How long did North Carolina’s deadline run?
- Justice Ginsburg described a 10-year cutoff from the defendant’s last act or omission, even if the injury became apparent later.
- How long can hazardous-waste injuries take to appear?
- Justice Ginsburg wrote that they can have latency periods of 10 to 40 years.
- Why did Justice Scalia disagree with one part of the Court’s opinion?
- He said laws that expressly override state rules should be read according to their ordinary meaning, not narrowly.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.