In the case of Alan Meghrig et al. v. KFC Western, Inc., 1996, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a party cannot recover costs for an environmental cleanup under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) if they have already completed the cleanup before filing suit. The dispute began when KFC purchased property from Meghrig and later discovered toxic substances on it. After cleaning up without notifying Meghrig or seeking government intervention, KFC sued to recoup their expenses under RCRA's citizen-suit provision which allows private parties to seek court orders against those contributing to "imminent and substantial endangerment." However, since there was no ongoing threat by the time of lawsuit as required by RCRA due to prior clean-up efforts made by KFC itself, SCOTUS unanimously held that Congress did not intend for this act to provide compensation for past cleanup efforts but rather only forward-looking relief i.e., restraining order or injunctions compelling responsible parties to take action in face of imminent danger.

In the dissenting opinion for Alan Meghrig et al. v. KFC Western, Inc., Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). She argued that RCRA should be interpreted to allow private parties to recover cleanup costs from past polluters, even if there is no imminent endangerment at present. According to her view, this would better serve Congress' intent in passing RCRA - promoting prompt cleanup of hazardous waste sites and ensuring those responsible bear the cost. The majority's reading could potentially discourage voluntary cleanups by property owners who discover contamination after acquiring a site because they cannot recoup their expenses from previous polluters unless they can prove an ongoing or future threat. This might lead them instead to leave contamination unaddressed until it becomes an imminent hazard – contrary to both environmental safety and legislative intent.