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
Territory of Guam and the United States dispute liability for environmental hazards at the Ordot Dump, a site built by the Navy in the 1940s where both parties have allegedly deposited waste.
The Court held that the natural reading of § 113(f)(3)(B) limits a party’s right to seek contribution under CERCLA to situations where the party has settled a CERCLA‑specific liability, and therefore reversed the Court of Appeals judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Background and question before the Court
Guam and the United States dispute liability for environmental hazards at the Ordot Dump, a site constructed by the Navy in the 1940s and used for waste disposal over several decades.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, the case turns on whether § 113(f)(3)(B) should be read to allow contribution claims only after a party settles a CERCLA‑specific liability.
What each side argues
Territory of Guam (Petitioner)
According to Petitioner, guam argues that the United States is trying to steer the cleanup away from CERCLA and sue Guam under the Clean Water Act to avoid its own liability.
United States (Respondent)
The United States argues that remedial measures taken under other environmental statutes can be considered CERCLA “response actions.”
The United States contends that § 113(f)(3)(B) already permits contribution after any civil action under §§ 106 and 107, making an additional reading redundant.
What happened at oral argument
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the United States’ position improperly imports the term “under CERCLA” into Section 113 while the case is brought under Section 107.
Justice Sotomayor questioned whether the Court had resolved the claims rather than the liability.
Justice Gorsuch asked for clarification on the preemptive effect of the government’s position for state contribution laws.
According to Justice Thomas, justice Thomas inquired whether a CERCLA recovery could be sought for penalties under other environmental provisions.
Justice Sotomayor asked why the source of an activity should matter for determining whether a “response action” is CERCLA‑specific.
What the Court decided
The Court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment and remanded the case, holding that § 113(f)(3)(B) permits contribution only after a party settles a CERCLA‑specific liability.
Why it matters
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.
- 5db03ca1428b846af5bc-r1-bfb527815e386b66.pdforal argument transcript
- a4a0cfe23b3b6ae9aefe-r1-9d333f89c250927d.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.