Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

3 

Opinion of ALITO, J. 

here.  The question of state-court jurisdiction is only one of
many in this case, and the briefing and argument on that 
issue left important questions without fully satisfactory an-
swers.  The Court tries to clear up what §113 means, but as
I will attempt to show, the Court’s interpretation presents 
serious  problems.  Under  these  circumstances,  the  better 
course  is  not  to  decide  this  perplexing  question  at  this 
juncture. 

II 
A 
CERCLA  §113  is  like  a  puzzle  with  pieces  that  are  ex-
ceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to fit together.  Here is 
what these provisions say, with language that is not perti-
nent for present purposes omitted: 

“(b) Jurisdiction; venue

“Except as provided in subsectio [n] . . . (h) of this sec-
tion  [and  another  provision  not  relevant  for  present 
purposes], the United States district courts shall have 
exclusive  original  jurisdiction  over  all  controversies
arising under this chapter, without regard to the citi-
zenship of the parties or the amount in controversy. . . . 

.

 .

 .

 .

 .

 “(h) Timing of review

“No Federal court shall have jurisdiction under Fed-
eral law other than under section 1332 of title 28 (re-
lating to diversity of citizenship jurisdiction) or under 
State law which is applicable or relevant and appropri-
ate under section 9621 of this title [CERCLA §121, 42
U. S. C.  §9621]  (relating  to  cleanup  standards)  to  re-
view any challenges to removal or remedial action se-
lected under section 9604 of this title, or to review any
order issued under section 9606(a) of this title [concern-
ing emergency measures ordered by the President], in