This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
United States (Petitioner)
According to United States (Petitioner), according to United States (Petitioner), the respondent’s theory should be rejected because it violates fundamental canons of statutory construction, renders §113(f) superfluous, mocks the textual limitations enforced by the Court, and frustrates Congress’s clear intent to encourage settlements with the government.
Respondent
If the respondent has a cost‑recovery claim under §107, the settlement bar in §113(f) becomes ineffective.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced the hearing of United States v. Atlantic Research Corporation.
Counsel for the respondent, Owen T. Armstrong, Jr., presented oral argument on behalf of the respondent.
The case was formally submitted to the Court at 11:02 a.m.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
EPA has entered into settlements with literally tens of thousands of PRPs.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 27e6402d609e2abdf9de-r1-a043c179163206a3.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.