In the 1993 case Key Tronic Corporation v. United States et al., the Supreme Court addressed whether certain legal expenses could be recovered under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The court held that attorney's fees incurred in pursuing a cost recovery claim against another potentially responsible party can't be considered "necessary costs of response" recoverable under CERCLA. However, it also ruled that some legal costs directly tied to cleanup efforts might qualify as necessary response costs. This decision clarified what types of litigation-related expenses are eligible for reimbursement under federal environmental law.

In the dissenting opinion for Key Tronic Corporation v. United States, Justice Scalia argued that the majority had misinterpreted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). He believed that attorney's fees should not be considered a necessary cost of response under CERCLA. In his view, Congress did not intend to include litigation costs as part of cleanup efforts when it drafted this legislation. Instead, he suggested these were separate issues entirely and should be treated as such in court rulings. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "enforcement activities" within CERCLA to include private party lawsuits seeking recovery from other potentially responsible parties (PRPs). According to him, enforcement activities referred only to government actions taken against PRPs who failed to comply with their cleanup obligations under CERCLA.