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.

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