Guam v. United States

Contribution actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) may be pursued only after settlement of a “CERCLA-specific liability.”

The United States Environmental Protection Agency entered a consent decree with Guam to resolve Clean Water Act violations that stemmed from a dump used by both the United States and Guam. Guam later sued the United States and claimed that under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), it was entitled to cost recovery and contribution relating to the Clean Water Act violations.  The D.C. Circuit determined that because Guam could have asserted a contribution claim, they could not maintain a cost-recovery claim. The circuit court further stated that Guam filed its action outside the statute of limitations to assert the contribution claim and therefore, had no recourse.  On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and held that contribution actions under CERCLA require the resolution of predicate CERCLA-specific liability.  The Court reasoned that contribution is provided as a tool to “apportion[ ] the burdens of a predicate ‘common liability” that is commonly a “creature of a specific statutory regime” and does not stand alone outside the regime.  The contribution section of CERCLA references liability under CERCLA, and to extend its reach beyond CERCLA-specific environmental liability “would stretch the statute beyond Congress’ actual language.”  Therefore, because Guam’s violations were under the Clean Water Act, Guam could not have brought a contribution claim under CERCLA, and Guam can only move forward with its cost-recovery claim.  REVERSED and REMANDED.