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

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

fall within §113(b).6  At the same time, §113(b) is not sub-
sumed  by  §113(h).  Many  claims  brought  under  the  Act, 
such as those to recover cleanup costs under §107, are not 
challenges to cleanup plans.

Sections 113(b) and 113(h) thus each do work independ-
ent of one another.  The two provisions overlap in a partic-
ular  type  of  case:  challenges  to  cleanup  plans  in  federal 
court that arise under the Act.  In such cases, the exceptions 
clause  in  §113(b)  instructs  that  the  limitation  of  §113(h)
prevails.  It does nothing more. 

III 
Although the Montana Supreme Court answered the ju-
risdictional question correctly, the Court erred by holding
that the landowners were not potentially responsible par-
ties under the Act and therefore did not need EPA approval 
to  take  remedial  action.  Section  122(e)(6),  titled  “Incon-
sistent  response  action,”  provides  that  “[w]hen  either  the
President, or a potentially responsible party . . . has initi-
ated  a  remedial  investigation  and  feasibility  study  for  a
particular facility under this chapter, no potentially respon-
sible party may undertake any remedial action at the facil-
ity unless such remedial action has been authorized by the
President.”  42 U. S. C. §9622(e)(6).  Both parties agree that 

—————— 

6 JUSTICE ALITO argues that our interpretation leaves no meaning for 
the  exceptions  in  §113(h)  for  federal  courts  hearing  state  law  actions
while  sitting  in  diversity  and  federal  courts  hearing  actions  invoking 
state law standards  deemed “applicable or relevant and appropriate” by 
the  Act.    42  U. S. C.  §9613(h).    Because  we  read  §113(b)  to  cover  only
federal  law  claims,  JUSTICE  ALITO  assumes  that  these  exceptions  in 
§113(h) would never apply.  But as we explained, §113(h) applies to all 
“challenges  to  removal  or  remedial  action”  that  make  their  way  into 
“[f]ederal court,” whether through §113(b) or some other route.  §9613(h).
That includes state law challenges arising by way of diversity jurisdic-
tion or supplemental jurisdiction as well as federal law challenges aris-
ing under sources of law other than the Act.  The exceptions in §113(h)
are thus necessary to delineate which of these challenges may proceed in
federal court and which may not.