Does the Supreme Court have the stomach to tackle the super fun Superfund statute of limitations again?

Georgia-Pacific, in its Nov. 14 petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, argued that the 6th Circuit’s ruling, left uncorrected, would impose “arbitrary and draconian” burdens on those undertaking environmental cleanups, and would incentivize premature protective suits as well, ultimately producing less accurate allocations of responsibility. Additionally, the paper company argued that the appellate ruling is a direct split from a previous ruling from the 1st Circuit in American Cyanamid Co. v. Capuano, where that court concluded that declaratory judgment holding two parties jointly and severally liable for all future costs of removal or remedial action did not trigger CERCLA’s statute of limitations, as judgment on liability for future costs “is not a judgment for the recovery of such costs.”

insideepa.com/...