United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (2007)
Primary Holding
Potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) may recover cleanup costs from other PRPs through a cause of action provided by §107(a).
In the case of United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., the Supreme Court decided that companies responsible for pollution (called potentially responsible parties, or PRPs) can recover cleanup costs from other responsible parties. This is important because it helps ensure that those who contribute to environmental damage can share the financial burden of cleaning it up, which can lead to more responsible behavior and better protection of the environment. For consumers, this ruling means that if a company is involved in cleaning up a contaminated site, they can seek compensation from others who also contributed to the pollution. This case is relevant if you are affected by pollution in your community, as it reinforces the idea that companies should be held accountable for their actions and that they can work together to address environmental issues.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., the underlying dispute arose from the cleanup of a contaminated site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Atlantic Research Corporation, a potentially responsible party (PRP), incurred costs while cleaning up a site that was contaminated with hazardous substances. The company sought to recover these expenses from other PRPs, which led to a question about the interpretation of CERCLA's provisions regarding the rights of PRPs to seek reimbursement for cleanup costs. The procedural history of the case began when Atlantic Research filed a lawsuit to recover its cleanup costs. The case eventually reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which addressed the issue of whether §107(a) of CERCLA allows PRPs to recover costs from other PRPs. The Eighth Circuit's decision was in conflict with other circuit courts, which had differing interpretations of the relationship between §107(a) and §113(f) of CERCLA, particularly regarding the ability of PRPs to seek contribution from one another. The relevant background context includes the enactment of CERCLA, which established a framework for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites and defined the liability of PRPs. The Act includes two key provisions: §107(a), which outlines the liability of PRPs for cleanup costs, and §113(f), which provides a mechanism for PRPs to seek contribution from other liable parties. Prior Supreme Court rulings, particularly in Cooper Industries, had left unresolved questions about the interplay between these provisions, prompting the need for clarification in this case. The Supreme Court ultimately decided to address whether PRPs could utilize §107(a) to recover costs from other PRPs, thereby resolving a significant legal ambiguity.
Whether §107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides potentially responsible parties (PRPs) with a cause of action to recover costs from other PRPs.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- April 23, 2007
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Thomas
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006)
Consumer LostThe Supreme Court held that the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction over "waters of the United States" is limited to relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water, as well as wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to such waters, thereby rejecting the broader interpretation that included intermittent and ephemeral water bodies.
Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (2008)
Consumer WonThe Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) allows a prevailing party in a case against the government to recover attorney's fees, including paralegal services, at the prevailing market rate, rather than limiting recovery to the cost incurred by the attorney's firm.
Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008)
Consumer LostThe statutory grounds for vacating and modifying arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act are exclusive, and parties cannot contractually expand those grounds.
Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., 547 U.S. 356 (2006)
Consumer LostA fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) may sue a beneficiary for reimbursement of medical expenses paid by the ERISA plan when the beneficiary has recovered damages from a third party, as long as the plan contains a valid reimbursement provision.