Public policy made simple. Dive into our information hub today!

Guam v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Guam v. United States
Term: 2020
Important Dates
Argument: April 26, 2021
Decided: May 24, 2021
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Clarence Thomas • Chief Justice John Roberts • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett

Guam v. United States is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 26, 2021, during the court's October 2020-2021 term.

In a unanimous opinion, the court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that a CERCLA contribution requires resolution of a CERCLA-specific liability. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In the 1940s, the U.S. Navy built and operated a landfill, the Ordot Dump, in Guam for the disposal of munitions, chemicals, and garbage. The landfill had no environmental safeguards. Guam gained sovereignty and the Navy ceased to own or operate the dump. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into an agreement with Guam to close and cover the dump to prevent further pollution. In 2017, Guam filed CERCLA complaints in federal district court against the United States seeking financial contribution for costs incurred related to closing the dump and remediation with the EPA. The United States argued that Guam could not bring the claims under CERCLA due to its agreement with the EPA and moved to dismiss the case. The district court denied the motion. The United States appealed to the District of Columbia Circuit for review. The district court certified the request and the District of Columbia Circuit granted review. The court reversed the district court's ruling and remanded the case back to the lower court for dismissal. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issues: The case concerned Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) claims and whether Guam or the U.S. Navy is financially responsible for the environmental hazards arising from the Ordot Dump, a public landfill.
  • The questions presented:
    "1. Whether a non-CERCLA settlement can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B).
    2. Whether a settlement that expressly disclaims any liability determination and leaves the settling party exposed to future liability can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B)."[2]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.[3]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    In the 1940s, the United States Navy built and operated a landfill, the Ordot Dump, in Guam for the disposal of munitions, chemicals, and garbage. The Navy continued to use the landfill after Guam gained sovereignty. The Ordot Dump lacked any environmental safeguards. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added the dump to its National Priorities List in 1983. Beginning in 1986, the EPA ordered Guam to create plans for the containment and disposal of the landfill's waste. In 1988, the EPA determined that the Navy was a potentially responsible party (PRP) for the site. However, the Navy no longer owned or operated the dump since it relinquished sovereignty of the island. In 2002, the EPA sued Guam in the District Court of Guam under the Clean Water Act for non-compliance, since pollutants from the landfill were leaching into United States waters. In 2004, Guam and the EPA entered into an agreement requiring Guam to pay a civil penalty, close the Ordot Dump, and install a cover for the dump. The agreement specifically stated that it applied and was binding to the Government of Guam and on the United States and that it did not find or admit liability against or by Guam's government. Guam closed the landfill in 2011.[3]

    In 2017, Guam filed CERCLA complaints against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia related to the Ordot Dump's closure. One complaint fell under CERCLA Section 107, in which Guam sought to recoup costs from closing the landfill and from its remediation proceedings with the EPA. The second fell under CERCLA Section 113, in which Guam sought contribution from the Navy as a PRP, arguing that the U.S. Navy was responsible for the landfill's contamination. The United States moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that Guam could not cite Section 107 because Section 113 is exclusively related to liable parties that have judicially-approved settlements with the United States and because Section 113 claims have a three-year statute of limitations. The district court allowed the case to proceed and denied the United States' motion to dismiss, concluding that "whether or not an agreement for the removal or remediation of hazardous waste ‘resolves’ liability for section 113(f)(3)(B) purposes turns on the terms of the agreement," and that Guam's agreement with the EPA did not resolve Guam's liability for the landfill's cleanup.[3]

    The United States sought interlocutory appeal on the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss. The court certified the appeal and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the request for review. On February 14, 2020, the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the District of Columbia's denial of the United States' motion to dismiss and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint. On September 16, 2020, the Government of Guam appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 8, 2021, the Supreme Court granted review.[3]

    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)

    See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980, and gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) power to regulate hazardous substances at contaminated waste sites nationwide. The act also permitted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to judge individuals or companies liable for contamination and force these parties to pay for the cleanup of sites.[4][5]

    CERCLA also created the Superfund program, a federal system of contaminated sites listed by priority and level of waste contamination. The Superfund program is also known as the National Priorities List. The EPA must update the National Priorities List once every year, and sites near the top of the list receive the most attention.[4][5]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ 1. Whether a non-CERCLA settlement can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B).
    2. Whether a settlement that expressly disclaims any liability determination and leaves the settling party exposed to future liability can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B).[6]     		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    In a unanimous opinion, the court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that a CERCLA contribution requires resolution of a CERCLA-specific liability. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:[1]

    “ The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, commonly known as CERCLA, establishes a complex statutory scheme for responding to certain environmental hazards. 94 Stat. 2767, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq. Several of its provisions address what is often the crucial question in a remedial action: Who pays?


    Today’s case involves §113(f )(3)(B) of the Act,1 which allows “[a] person who has resolved its liability to the United States or a State” in a settlement to seek “contribution”— that is, money from another responsible individual. The question is whether a party must resolve a CERCLA-specific liability in order to trigger this right, or whether a broader array of settlements involving environmental liability will do. We hold that CERCLA contribution requires resolution of a CERCLA-specific liability.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.


    October term 2020-2021

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[9]

    The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.

    The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were removed from the argument calendar.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 U.S. Supreme Court, Guam v. United States, decided May 24, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Guam v. United States: Questions presented," accessed January 9, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Gov't of Guam v. United States, decided February 14, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)," accessed February 17, 2015
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Congressional Research Service, "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act," June 14, 2012
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed April 27, 2021
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," accessed April 27, 2021
    9. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court," accessed April 20, 2015
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Guam_v._United_States&oldid=8891781"