Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-382_869d.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4 

GUAM v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

open to future enforcement action.

We need only address the first point to decide this case.2 
A settlement must resolve a CERCLA liability to trigger a 
contribution action under §113(f )(3)(B). 

Our analysis focuses on the totality of subsection 113(f ), 
which  governs  the  scope  of  a  “contribution”  claim  under 
CERCLA.  This  subsection  begins  with  an  anchor  provi-
sion—entitled  “contribution”—that  allows  “[a]ny  person
[to] seek contribution from any other person who is liable or 
potentially liable under section [1]07(a) of [CERCLA], dur-
ing  or  following  any  civil  action  under  section  [1]06  of
[CERCLA]  or  under  section  [1]07(a)  of  [CERCLA].” 
§113(f )(1).  It next describes how parties can insulate them-
selves  from  contribution,  explaining  that  “[a]  person  who 
has resolved its liability to the United States or a State in
an  administrative  or  judicially  approved  settlement  shall
not be liable for claims for contribution regarding matters
addressed  in  the  settlement.”  §113(f )(2).    And  finally,  it
discusses the treatment of “[p]ersons not party to [a] settle-
ment.”  §113(f )(3).  Most relevant here, “[a] person who 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  an  administrative  or  judicially  approved  settle-
ment  may  seek  contribution  from  any  person  who  is  not 
[§113(f )(2)].”  
party  to  a  settlement  referred  to 
§113(f )(3)(B). 

in 

That this subsection centers on and is entitled “contribu-
tion” is the first clue that it is concerned only with the dis-
tribution of CERCLA liability.  A contribution suit does not 
exist in a vacuum, but rather is a tool for apportioning the 
burdens  of  a  predicate  “common  liability”  among  the  re-
sponsible parties.  United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 
551 U. S. 128, 138–139 (2007); see also Northwest Airlines, 

—————— 

2 Guam has not challenged other portions of the lower court’s reason-

ing, so we express no opinion on them.