Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

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

5 

Opinion of ALITO, J. 

If it does not, then that ends the inquiry.  And that is what 
the Court holds.  Ante, at 8–9. 

The  Court  interprets  the  phrase  “arising  under”  in 
§113(b) to mean the same thing as that phrase means in the 
federal-question  jurisdiction  statute,  28  U. S. C.  §1331. 
Under  that  provision, as  the  Court  puts  it,  “[i]n  the  mine 
run of cases, ‘[a] suit arises under the law that creates the 
cause of action.’ ”  Ante, at 9 (quoting American Well Works 
Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U. S. 257, 260 (1916)).  Thus, 
the Court concludes, a claim arises under CERCLA only if 
it is based on CERCLA, and since the landowners’ restora-
tion damages claim is based on Montana law, it is obviously 
not based on CERCLA and does not fall within the exclusive 
jurisdiction conferred on the district courts by §113(b).  This 
makes short work of the question of state-court jurisdiction, 
but it presents serious problems.

First, it cannot explain why §113(b) says that the juris-
diction it confers is “without regard to the citizenship of the
parties or the amount in controversy.”  If that jurisdiction
is  limited  to  claims  that  are  based  on  CERCLA,  district 
courts have jurisdiction to entertain all those claims under
28 U. S. C. §1331, which does not require either diversity or
any minimum amount in controversy.  So why go out of the 
way to say that §113(b) jurisdiction does not require diver-
sity or any minimum amount in controversy?  The only log-
ical reason is to ensure that the provision covers suits that 
could not be brought under 28 U. S. C. §1331.  Thus, §113(b) 
jurisdiction must be broader than general federal-question
jurisdiction.  By  denying  this,  the  Court’s  interpretation
turns the phrase “without regard to the citizenship of the 
parties  or  the  amount  in  controversy”  into  a  meaningless 
and useless appendage. 

Second, under the Court’s interpretation, there is no rea-
son  why  §113(h)  should  specify  that  its  reduction  of  the
scope of the jurisdiction conferred by §113(b) does not affect