Supreme Court Declines to Hear 3M's PFAS Case

The U.S. Supreme Court recently opted not to hear a case involving the 3M Company and allegations concerning “forever chemicals,” specifically per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The case, brought forth by the states of Maryland and South Carolina, centers on claims that 3M knowingly sold products containing PFAS without disclosing their associated health risks. Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the court's decision, as noted in a court order list released on Monday.

Newsweek

Maryland and South Carolina argue that their lawsuit against 3M should be adjudicated under state law, asserting that the company’s actions fall within state jurisdiction. Conversely, 3M contends that it is entitled to a federal forum for its defense, particularly due to its involvement in manufacturing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) for the U.S. military under federal contracts. The company maintains that the lawsuit seeks recovery for alleged contamination linked to AFFF, and thus federal jurisdiction is warranted.

Newsweek

3M's attorneys emphasized that the lawsuit's claims are fundamentally flawed, arguing that the appeals court's decision reflects a consensus among appellate courts that a plaintiff cannot undermine a federal contractor's right to a federal forum through vague legal arguments. They assert that the federal-officer removal statute is crucial for protecting contractors who assist the federal government, even when facing state lawsuits.

Newsweek

The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case means that the ruling from the appeals court will remain in effect. This ruling requires further examination of whether 3M has presented a plausible federal defense. The states argue that allowing the appeals court's decision to stand would significantly broaden federal jurisdiction over cases rooted in state law, undermining state sovereignty and the ability to enforce local laws.

Newsweek

Critics of 3M's position, including attorneys representing Maryland and South Carolina, argue that the company's claims threaten state sovereignty. They contend that permitting federal jurisdiction based on tenuous connections to federal contracts would hinder states' rights to pursue civil enforcement actions against private entities in their own courts.

Newsweek

• “The policies behind the federal-officer removal statute are more important than when a defendant who has helped the federal government accomplish objectives that are nationally important, but locally unpopular, faces a lawsuit by the state itself,” — Attorneys for 3M Company

Newsweek

• “Affirming removal here derogates state sovereignty by preventing States from maintaining civil enforcement actions in their own courts against private defendants as long as those defendants can conjure some connection to any work they have done as federal contractors.” — Attorneys for Maryland and South Carolina

Newsweek

With the Supreme Court declining to hear the case, the focus will shift to the appeals court's remand for further consideration of 3M's federal defense claims. The outcome of this case could have lasting implications for the jurisdictional boundaries between state and federal courts, particularly in cases involving environmental contamination and public health.

Newsweek