Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-382_869d.pdf
Page Number: 4

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–382 
_________________ 

TERRITORY OF GUAM, PETITIONER v. 
UNITED STATES 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

[May 24, 2021] 

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. 
The  Comprehensive  Environmental  Response,  Compen-
sation,  and  Liability  Act  of  1980,  commonly  known  as 
CERCLA,  establishes  a  complex  statutory  scheme  for  re-
sponding to certain environmental hazards.  94 Stat. 2767, 
as amended, 42 U. S. C. §9601 et seq.  Several of its provi-
sions address what is often the crucial question in a reme-
dial action: Who pays?

Today’s case involves §113(f )(3)(B) of the Act,1 which al-
lows “[a] person who has resolved its liability to the United
States or a State” in a settlement to seek “contribution”— 
that  is,  money  from  another  responsible  individual.  The 
question  is  whether  a  party  must  resolve  a  CERCLA-
specific liability in order to trigger this right, or whether a
broader  array  of  settlements  involving  environmental  lia-
bility will do.  We hold that CERCLA contribution requires
resolution of a CERCLA-specific liability. 

—————— 

1 For the sake of simplicity, we cite CERCLA’s provisions as they ap-
pear in the Act itself.  The most relevant corresponding sections of Title 
42  of  the  U.  S.  Code  are  §9607  (§107  of  CERCLA)  and  §9613  (§113  of
CERCLA).