Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd. v. The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit, in conflict with Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010), and RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016), correctly concluded that holding Teck liable for its discharges in Canada was not an impermissible extraterritorial application of CERCLA.

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit, in conflict with this Court’s decision in Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014), and the Second, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits, correctly held that a State may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant because the defendant knew its conduct would have in-state effects, where the defendant’s relevant conduct occurred elsewhere.

3. Whether the Ninth Circuit, in conflict with the First Circuit and in tension with the opinions of this Court and several other circuits, correctly held that a defendant can be an “arranger” under CERCLA even if the defendant did not arrange for anyone else to dispose of or treat the waste

Case Documents

• Cert Petition Teck Cominco Metals2 C Ltd v Pakootas U S Supreme Court
• U.S. Chamber Amicus Brief -- Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd. v. Pakootas (U.S. Supreme Court) .pdf
• Reply Brief -- Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd. v. Pakootas (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf