Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 33

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

7 

Opinion of ALITO, J. 

C 
The  Government  and  petitioner  advance  a  different  in-
terpretation of §§113(b) and (h), and although this interpre-
tation solves the problems noted above, it has problems of
its own.  The Court, as noted, runs into trouble by interpret-
ing the phrase “arising under” CERCLA in §113(b) to mean
what “arising under” means in 28 U. S. C. §1331.  The Gov-
ernment obviates this difficulty by arguing that “arising un-
der” in §113(b) has a broader meaning, such as the meaning
of the same phrase in Article III of the Constitution.  See 
Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 23–24.  The Gov-
ernment suggests that “arising under” in §113(b) may reach
“ ‘any case or controversy that might call for the application 
of federal law.’ ”  Id., at 24 (quoting Verlinden B. V. v. Cen-
tral Bank of Nigeria, 461 U. S. 480, 492 (1983)).  If §113(b) 
uses the phrase in something like this sense, the jurisdic-
tion it confers can reach some claims under state law, and 
that would explain §113(b)’s specification that this jurisdic-
tion is not dependent on either diversity or amount in con-
troversy.  In  other  words,  this  language  makes  clear  that
federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear these state-
law claims without the restrictions that usually apply when
federal courts entertain such claims. 

Up to this point, the interpretation favored by the Gov-
ernment and petitioner proceeds smoothly, but it stumbles
when it moves from §113(b) to §113(h).  That provision re-
duces  the  grant  of  jurisdiction  in  §113(b)  by  taking  away
jurisdiction over challenges to removal and remedial action
unless, among other things, those claims are brought in a 
diversity action.  The upshot is that federal district courts
are  left  with  jurisdiction  over  most  state-law  claims  that 
challenge removal and remedial action only where the par-
ties  are  diverse.4    If  it  turns  out  that  diversity  is  lacking, 

—————— 

4 They also retain jurisdiction over claims “under State law which is 
applicable or relevant and appropriate under [§121] (relating to cleanup