Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-382_869d.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

person  who  at  the  time  of  disposal  of  any  hazardous  sub-
stance owned or operated any facility at which such hazard-
ous substances were disposed of.”  See also §101(27).  The 
second was a §113(f ) “contribution” action.  Under that pro-
vision, 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  [a ]  settlement  may  seek
contribution from any person who is not [already] party to
a [qualifying] settlement.”  §113(f )(3)(B).

Rather than increase Guam’s odds of recovery, however,
the second legal theory led to the dismissal of its complaint. 
According to the D. C. Circuit, if a party can assert a con-
tribution claim under §113(f ), it cannot assert a cost-recov-
ery claim under §107(a).  See 950 F. 3d, at 111.  The court 
then  determined  that  Guam  possessed  a  contribution
claim—at  least  at  one  point—because  the  remedial 
measures  and  conditional  release  in  the  Clean  Water  Act 
decree  sufficiently  “ ‘resolved  Guam’s  liability’ ”  for  the 
dump.  Id., at 114–117 (brackets omitted).  But because the 
2004 decree had triggered the since-expired 3-year statute
of limitations for contribution actions, Guam had no remedy
at all.  Id., at 107, 117; see also §113(g)(3).  We granted cer-
tiorari.  592 U. S. ___ (2021). 

II 

Guam now attacks two links in this chain of reasoning: 
First, Guam retreats from its complaint and argues that it 
never had a viable contribution claim under §113(f ), leaving 
it free to pursue a cost-recovery action under §107(a).  The 
reason,  argues  Guam,  is  that  a  contribution  claim  arises 
only if a settlement resolves liability under CERCLA, and
not under some other law such as the Clean Water Act.  Sec-
ond,  Guam  contends  that  even  if  resolution  of  a  non-
CERCLA liability is enough, the decree did not adequately 
“resolve” any sort of liability because Guam did not formally 
admit responsibility and because the agreement left Guam