Meghrig et al. v. KFC Western, Inc.
516 U.S. 479 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) does not authorize a private cause of action to recover the costs of a past environmental cleanup, particularly when the waste no longer poses an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment at the time the suit is filed.
Facts:
- Alan and Margaret Meghrig were the prior owners of a parcel of property in Los Angeles.
- KFC Western, Inc. (KFC) later purchased the property and operated a restaurant on it.
- In 1988, during a construction project, KFC discovered that the property was contaminated with petroleum.
- The County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services ordered KFC to clean up the contamination.
- KFC spent $211,000 removing and disposing of the oil-tainted soil, thereby remediating the environmental threat.
Procedural Posture:
- KFC Western, Inc. sued Alan and Margaret Meghrig in the U.S. District Court, seeking equitable restitution for cleanup costs under RCRA's citizen suit provision.
- The District Court dismissed KFC's complaint, holding that RCRA does not permit recovery of past cleanup costs for a threat that is no longer imminent.
- KFC, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that RCRA authorized an award of restitution for past costs and that a suit could be based on a past endangerment.
- The Meghrigs, as petitioners, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6972, authorize a private party to recover the costs of a prior cleanup of contaminated property that no longer poses an imminent and substantial endangerment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No. The citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) does not authorize a private party to recover past cleanup costs. The plain language of § 6972(a) provides for injunctive relief, allowing district courts 'to restrain any person' or 'to order such person to take such other action as may be necessary,' but does not contemplate retrospective monetary damages or restitution. This interpretation is supported by RCRA's core purpose, which is to prevent present and future harm, not to compensate for past remediation efforts. The statute's requirement that waste 'may present an imminent and substantial endangerment' means the threat must be present at the time of the suit, not in the past. Furthermore, unlike the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which explicitly provides for cost recovery, RCRA's text and structure, including its lack of a statute of limitations and its 90-day notice provision, demonstrate that Congress did not intend it to function as a cost-recovery mechanism.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between RCRA and CERCLA, establishing RCRA's citizen suit provision as a tool for abating current or future environmental dangers, not for compensating past cleanup expenses. By limiting RCRA's remedies to forward-looking injunctions, the Court directs parties seeking cost recovery to utilize other statutes, such as CERCLA or state laws, which are specifically designed for that purpose. This ruling prevents RCRA from becoming a general-purpose cost-recovery tool and preserves its focus on preventing imminent harm, thereby clarifying the legal avenues available for different types of environmental claims.
