U.S. Supreme Court

Case Status


Docket Number


Cert. Pending


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 Updates

Cert. petition denied

June 10, 2019

U.S. Chamber files amicus brief in support of cert. petition, urging the Court to grant review of Ninth Circuit judgment expanding scope of “arranger” liability under CERCLA

April 05, 2019

Click here to view the Chamber’s coalition brief.

John P. Elwood of Vinson & Elkins LLP served as co-counsel for the amici.

Case Documents