Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly concluded that holding Teck liable for its discharges in Canada was not an impermissible extraterritorial application of CERCLA

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Teck Metals Ltd. (Teck) owns a smelter that has operated in British Columbia, Canada for over a century. During that time, Teck and its predecessors have reached agreements with U.S. authorities, with the support of the Canadian government, to address cross-border air and water pollution concerns associated with the smelter’s operations. Respondents nevertheless brought private suits under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for declaratory relief, response costs, and natural-resource damages for smelter discharges into the Columbia River in Canada that were carried into and ultimately settled in Washington State. The questions presented are: 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. (i) ll 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.