October Term 2020 · Docket 20-382

Can a party sue for cost sharing under CERCLA if the original cleanup claim used a different environmental law?

Guam seeks cost sharing under CERCLA. The United States argues the original claim must also arise under CERCLA.

Official caption
Guam v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Suri argued Section 113(f)(3)(B) allows contribution claims regardless of the original statute.

    Mr. Garre argued the United States strategically avoided CERCLA liability by suing under the Clean Water Act.

    Justice Breyer questioned the benefit of the agreement if nothing resulted from it.

    Justice Thomas asked about other instances of contribution claims under different statutes.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Guam wants the United States to pay part of the Ordot Dump cleanup costs. The United States wants to avoid paying those costs. Guam argues Section 113(f)(3)(B) allows cost sharing regardless of the original statute. The United States argues the original claim must arise under CERCLA. Justice Breyer questioned the benefit of the agreement.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 26, 2021.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Guam wants the United States to pay part of the cleanup costs.

The United States wants to avoid paying the cleanup costs.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Guam argues Section 113(f)(3)(B) allows contribution claims regardless of the original statute.

The United States argues the original claim must arise under CERCLA for contribution.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Breyer asked if they could bring it under CERCLA again.

Justice Breyer asked what they got out of the agreement if nothing resulted from it.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of federal cost-sharing liability. It determines which parties pay for environmental cleanup. It affects how states and the federal government share financial burdens. It clarifies the interaction between different environmental statutes. It impacts future litigation over hazardous waste sites. It shapes the financial responsibilities of government entities. It influences the interpretation of contribution provisions.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON