Guam v. United States

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Guam v. United States
Argued April 26, 2021
Decided May 24, 2021
Full case nameTerritory of Guam v. United States
Docket no.20-382
Citations593 U.S. ___ (more)
141 S. Ct. 1608
209 L. Ed. 2d 691
Case history
Prior
SubsequentRemanded for further proceedings, 852 F. App'x 14 (D.C. Cir. 2021)
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinion
MajorityThomas, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

Guam v. United States, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a

U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with a dispute on fiscal responsibility for environmental and hazardous cleanup of the Ordot Dump created by the United States Navy on the island of Guam in the 1940s, which Guam then ran after becoming a territory in 1950 until the landfill's closure in 2011. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(aka Superfund), Guam had filed its lawsuit to recover a portion of cleanup costs for the landfill from the United States government in a timely manner, allowing their case to proceed.

Background

Ordot Landfill in 2016

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added the Ordot Dump to the National Priorities List in 1983 and had named the Navy as a potentially responsible party to it in 1988.[1]

In 2002, the EPA filed a complaint against Guam, stating that their management of the Ordot Dump violated the Clean Water Act, as waste contaminants from the dump were found to run off into the nearby Lonfit River and eventually into the Pacific Ocean. A consent decree was achieved in 2004, with Guam agreeing to pay a fine, close the site, and install a cover on the landfill.[2] A separate action initiated by the EPA in 2004 led to the site's forced closure in 2011,[3] and Guam agreeing to remediate affected areas around the landfill.[2] Total costs for completing these, along with other cleanup efforts ordered by the court, were estimated at $160 million.[1]

Guam filed a suit against the United States in 2017 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, or Superfund), asserting that since the Navy had been found as a potentially responsible party contributing to the site, the U.S. bears some of the cleanup costs, as outlined in CERCLA Section 107(a). The U.S. moved to close the suit, stating that under the clauses of CERCLA, there was a three-year statute of limitations for filing such complaints under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B), which started with the consent agreement in 2004, and thus Guam had missed its window.[1]

The case was first heard in the

Ketanji Jackson ruled that the consent decree did not involve liability for the environmental cleanup, nor involved the ability of Guam to seek liability response actions under CERCLA.[2] The government appealed to the District of Columbia Circuit, which reversed the District Court's decision in March 2020 and agreed that the statute of limitations for Guam had expired in 2007, three years after the 2004 consent agreement, as set by Section 113(f)(3)(B).[5][1]

Supreme Court

Guam petitioned their case to the Supreme Court, asking them to resolve the question of whether Section 113(f)(3)(B)'s three-year statute applied to the consent agreement they had made with the EPA. The Court granted certiorari to the case in January 2021,[6] with oral arguments heard on April 26, 2021.[7]

The Court issued its decision on May 24, 2021, reversing the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling and remanding the case for further review. In the unanimous opinion, the court ruled that Section 113(f)(3)(B) did not apply to the consent agreement that Guam had made with the EPA, and thus the three-year statute of limitations from Section 113(f)(3)(B) did not apply; as such, Guam had the ability to pursue action against the government as allotted by Section 107(a). Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion, focusing on the statutory interpretation of CERCLA. Thomas stated that "To be sure, as the Government points out, remedial measures that a party takes under another environmental statute might resemble steps taken in a formal CERCLA 'response action'. But relying on that functional overlap to reinterpret the phrase 'resolved its liability … for some or all of a response action' to mean 'settled an environmental liability that might have been actionable under CERCLA’ would stretch the statute beyond Congress' actual language."[8]

The decision has a potential impact on a number of pending lawsuits filed by states and local entities against the U.S. government and large companies to try to seek some recovery for the costs for cleanup of Superfund sites, as these suits had followed similar patterns of interaction between Guam and the EPA.[1]

References

  1. ^
    E&E News
    . Retrieved May 24, 2021.
  2. ^
    Courthouse News
    . Retrieved May 24, 2021.
  3. ^ Delgado, Nick (August 31, 2011). "Ordot Dump closed for business". KUAM-TV. Retrieved May 24, 2021.
  4. ^ Guam v. United States, 341 F. Supp. 3d 74 (D.D.C. 2018).
  5. ^ Guam v. United States, 950 F.3d 104 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
  6. ^ Guam v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 976 (2021).
  7. Courthouse News
    . Retrieved May 24, 2021.
  8. ^ Percival, Robert (May 24, 2021). "Unanimous court revives Guam's Superfund claim against U.S. Navy". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved May 24, 2021.

External links

(: