...
By Jenna Sundel
News Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the court's decision not to hear a case involving “forever chemicals,” according to a court order list released on Monday.
The order in Maryland, et al. v. 3M Co. stated, “Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.”
The order does not state why Alito did not participate.
Read More
Supreme Court to Discuss Donald Trump’s Sex Abuse Case4 min read
Supreme Court Blocks New York Ruling on Republican‑Held House District Map3 min read
Supreme Court Transgender Ruling: Read Justice Kagan’s Dissent in Full10 min read
Why It Matters
The states of Maryland and South Carolina are suing 3M Company, alleging that the company had knowledge of the dangers of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” but continued selling products containing PFAS without disclosing their dangers.
The EPA states that PFAS are “widely used, long lasting chemicals, components of which break down very slowly over time.”
“Scientific studies have shown that exposure to some PFAS in the environment may be linked to harmful health effects in humans and animals,” the agency states on its website.
The states asked the Supreme Court to consider whether the case should be heard at the state or federal level. The states argued that the claims fall exclusively under state law, while 3M argued that manufacturers are entitled to a federal forum to argue federal defenses.
...
What To Know
The 3M Company said the lawsuit seeks recovery for alleged PFAS contamination stemming from aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), including AFFF that 3M produced for the U.S. military under federal contracts.
“There is no serious dispute that 3M is entitled to a federal forum in any case that seeks to hold it liable for alleged PFAS contamination from work undertaken to fulfill federal contracts for AFFF,” attorneys for the company wrote.
The states said 3M did not contend that it manufactured the consumer products at issue under federal direction.
“While 3M asserts that it has a government contractor defense with respect to its conduct manufacturing AFFF, it has never asserted that the defense would extend to its manufacture and sale of PFAS-containing consumer products, including those at issue here,” attorneys for the states wrote.
The states argued that if the decision made by an appeals court is allowed to stand, it “would dramatically expand the scope of federal courts’ jurisdiction over cases founded entirely on state law far beyond what Congress intended, at the expense of the States’ ability to interpret and enforce their own laws.”
The 3M Company said that the argument “gets matters almost exactly backwards.”
“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,” the company’s lawyers wrote.
What People Are Saying
Attorneys for the 3M Company, in a brief filed in January: “The decision below reflects the unanimous view of the courts of appeals that a plaintiff cannot defeat a federal contractor’s entitlement to a federal forum based on a largely circular disclaimer that amounts to little more than artful pleading.”
Attorneys for Maryland and South Carolina, in a petition for a writ of certiorari filed in October 2025: “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.”
What Happens Next
With the Supreme Court declining to hear the case, an appeals court ruling will remain in effect. The appeals court remanded the case for consideration of “whether 3M plausibly alleged a colorable federal defense.”
Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com
In a polarized era, the center is dismissed as bland. At Newsweek, ours is different: The Courageous Center—it's not "both sides," it's sharp, challenging and alive with ideas. We follow facts, not factions. If that sounds like the kind of journalism you want to see thrive, we need you.
When you become a Newsweek Member, you support a mission to keep the center strong and vibrant. Members enjoy: Ad-free browsing, exclusive content and editor conversations. Help keep the center courageous. Join today.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines