In the United States v. Atlantic Research Corporation case in 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that potentially responsible parties (PRPs) could sue other PRPs under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The dispute arose when Atlantic Research Corp., which had voluntarily cleaned up a contaminated site it leased from the government, sought to recover some costs from the U.S. government as another PRP. Initially, lower courts denied this claim based on a previous ruling in Cooper Industries v. Aviall Services that only innocent parties could seek cost recovery under CERCLA's Section 107(a). However, upon appeal by Atlantic Research Corp., the Supreme Court reversed these decisions stating that any party who incurred cleanup costs can pursue cost recovery against other PRPs regardless of their own liability status.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Atlantic Research Corporation case argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 107(a)(4)(B) of CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) was incorrect. The dissent believed that this section should not allow potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to sue other PRPs for cost recovery under CERCLA. Instead, they contended that these suits should only be brought by innocent parties who had incurred cleanup costs involuntarily or without having contributed to the contamination themselves. They also expressed concern about potential double recoveries if a party could both contribute to a fund for general cleanup costs and then separately sue another party for those same costs under Section 107(a). This would undermine one of CERCLA’s key goals: encouraging voluntary cleanups by ensuring parties are held accountable for their share of responsibility.