Breaking news

On Monday, the Supreme Court expressed support in a dispute between Guam and the federal government over the cost of cleaning up toxic waste on the island.Chief Justice Clarence Thomas wrote View The case was approved by a unanimous court only four weeks after oral arguments.

case, Guam v. United StatesInvolving the territory of Guam, the U.S. Navy is required to share the cost of cleaning up Ordot Dump. Ordot Dump is the seat of the Super Fund. The Navy is said to have been dumping toxic waste for decades.The federal Superfund Act (the “Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act”) allows claims to be included Article 113(f)(3)(B). The regulation stipulates that “a person who has settled the liability to the United States…for part or all of the response actions or part or all of the costs of such actions shall be paid by… [a] Settlement can seek donations from anyone who does not meet the conditions [already] attend parties [qualifying] settlement. “

Before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Navy had successfully argued that Guam’s request was time-limited because the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2004 settlement of the Guanshui Law litigation triggered section 113(f)(3) ( B) Three-year statute of limitations. Guam argued in the Supreme Court that only by resolving the specific responsibilities of CERCLA but not the “Clean Water Act” can the statute of limitations be triggered. The court agreed with Guam’s opinion that only the settlement of CERCLA’s specific liability can trigger Guam’s statute of limitations for contributory claims.

When Thomas wrote to the court, he focused on the statutory text and its repeated references to specific CERCLA terms, such as “response cost” and “response action.” He rejected the navy’s argument that because the settlement of the Clean Water Act involved pollution at the Aldott dump, it was sufficient to trigger the statute of limitations. Thomas wrote: “It is certain that, as the government has pointed out, the remedial measures taken by the parties under another environmental regulation may be similar to the steps taken in the formal “response actions” of CERCLA.” “But rely on To reinterpret the term “resolved its responsibilities…for some or all of the response actions” means “resolved environmental responsibilities that may be taken under CERCLA” to reinterpret the term “resolved its responsibilities under CERCLA” will make the regulation go beyond the actual language of Congress. “Therefore, the court held that “CERCLA’s capital contribution needs to resolve CERCLA’s specific responsibilities.”

As a result of the decision, Guam will be able to continue to take action against the Navy to recover the cleaning costs associated with the Odote dump.

Please check back later for an in-depth analysis of comments.