Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-382_869d.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2020 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

TERRITORY OF GUAM v. UNITED STATES 

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

No. 20–382.  Argued April 26, 2021—Decided May 24, 2021 

Guam and the United States dispute liability for environmental hazards
at the Ordot Dump, a site constructed on the island by the Navy in the
1940s and into which both parties allegedly have deposited waste over 
the decades.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Guam 
entered into a consent decree in 2004 that resolved litigation filed by
the EPA alleging violations of the Clean Water Act.  The decree in rel-
evant  part required Guam  to  pay  a  civil  penalty  and  to take  certain 
actions  at  the  dump,  and  also  stated  that  Guam’s  compliance  would 
constitute  full  settlement  and  satisfaction  of  the  civil  claims  of  the 
United States as alleged in the EPA’s complaint (i.e., claims under the 
Clean Water Act).  More than a decade later, Guam sued the United 
States under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), alleging that the United 
States’ use of  the dump exposed it to two  possible actions under the 
Act.  The first was a “cost-recovery” action under §107(a), which allows 
recovery of the costs of a “removal or remedial action” from “any person 
who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or oper-
ated  any  facility  at  which  such  hazardous  substances  were  disposed 
of.”  The second was a “contribution” action under §113(f), which pro-
vides  that  a  party  that  “has  resolved  its  liability  to  the  United
States…for  some  or  all  of  a  response  action  or  for  some  or  all  of  the 
costs of such action in [a] settlement may seek contribution from any 
person  who  is  not  [already]  party  to  a  [qualifying]  settlement.” 
§113(f)(3)(B).    The  D.  C.  Circuit  rejected  Guam’s  CERCLA  claims
against the United States.  The court determined that although Guam
had once possessed a CERCLA contribution claim based on the 2004
consent  decree  that  sufficiently  “resolved  Guam’s  liability”  for  the 
dump, that claim was time barred.  The court further held that a party 
eligible to pursue a contribution claim under §113(f) cannot assert a