Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 

gov/enforcement/negotiating-superfund-settlements.

The Act encourages potentially responsible parties to en-
ter into such agreements by authorizing EPA to include a 
“covenant not to sue,” which caps the parties’ liability to the 
Government.  §9622(c)(1).    The  Act  also  protects  settling 
parties  from  contribution  claims  by  other  potentially
responsible parties.  §9613(f )(2).  Once finalized, the terms 
of  a  settlement  become  legally  binding  administrative
orders,  subject  to  civil  penalties  of  up  to  $25,000  a  day.
§§9609(a)(1)(E), 9622(l).

Moreover,  subsection  (e)  is  an  important  component  of 
§122.  It  establishes  a  reticulated  scheme  of  notices,  pro-
posals, and counterproposals for the settlement negotiation 
process.  §9622(e).  And the subsection places a moratorium
on EPA remedial actions while negotiations are under way.
§9622(e)(2)(A).    It  is  far  from  surprising  to  find  an  analo-
gous  provision  restricting  potentially  responsible  parties 
from taking remedial actions in the same subsection. 

JUSTICE GORSUCH also contends that our interpretation
violates the Act’s “saving clauses,” which provide that the
Act does not preempt liability or requirements under state 
law.  Post, at 3–4.  But we have long rejected interpretations 
of  sweeping  saving  clauses  that  prove  “absolutely  incon-
sistent  with  the  provisions  of  the  act”  in  which  they  are 
found.  American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Central Of-
fice  Telephone,  Inc.,  524  U. S.  214,  228  (1998)  (quoting 
Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 
426, 446 (1907)).  Interpreting the Act’s saving clauses  to 
erase the clear mandate of §122(e)(6) would allow the Act 
“to destroy itself.”  Ibid. 

What is more, Atlantic Richfield remains potentially lia-
ble  under  state  law  for  compensatory  damages,  including 
loss of use and enjoyment of property, diminution of value, 
incidental and consequential damages, and annoyance and 
discomfort.  The damages issue before the Court is whether