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

Disclosure: Vinson & Elkins LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in this case.

Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in conflict with Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. and RJR Nabisco Inc. v. European Community, correctly concluded that holding Teck liable for its discharges in Canada was not an impermissible extraterritorial application of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit—in conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in Walden v. Fiore, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 5th and 7th 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, when the defendant’s relevant conduct occurred elsewhere; and (3) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit—in conflict with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, and in tension with the opinions of the Supreme 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.