The Supreme Court’s conclusion that “the natural reading of § 9658’s text is that the statutes of repose are excluded” is incorrect due to the ambiguous nature of the term “statute of limitations” and § 9658’s legislative history. All of the Supreme Court’s arguments are flawed because of the Court’s failure to follow its own guidance, which dictates that the meaning of a term must be ascertained within the context of a statute in order to determine how the statute should be interpreted. As a result, § 9658 does not have the impact Congress intended because plaintiffs’ claims will continue to be barred by state statutes of repose unless and until individual states take action.
