Skip to main content

Nixon Peabody LLP

  • People
  • Capabilities
  • Insights
  • About
Trending Topics
    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni
    Practices

    View All

    • Affordable Housing
    • Community Development Finance
    • Corporate & Finance
    • Cybersecurity & Privacy
    • Entertainment & Media
    • Environmental
    • Franchising & Distribution
    • Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
    • Healthcare
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Services
    • Labor, Employment, and Benefits
    • Litigation
    • Private Wealth & Advisory
    • Project Finance
    • Public Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Regulatory & Government Relations
    Industries

    View All

    • Aviation
    • Cannabis
    • Consumer
    • Energy
    • Financial Services
    • Healthcare
    • Higher Education
    • Infrastructure
    • Manufacturing
    • Nonprofit Organizations
    • Real Estate
    • Sports & Stadiums
    • Technology
    Value-Added Services

    View All

    • Alternative Fee Arrangements

      Developing innovative pricing structures and alternative fee agreement models that deliver additional value for our clients.

    • Continuing Education

      Advancing professional knowledge and offering credits for attorneys, staff and other professionals.

    • Crisis Advisory

      Helping clients respond correctly when a crisis occurs.

    • DEI Strategic Services

      Providing our clients with legal, strategic, and practical advice to make transformational changes in their organizations.

    • eDiscovery

      Leveraging law and technology to deliver sound solutions.

    • Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)

      We help clients create positive return on investments in people, products, and the planet.

    • Global Services

      Delivering seamless service through partnerships across the globe.

    • Innovation

      Leveraging leading-edge technology to guide change and create seamless, collaborative experiences for clients and attorneys.

    • IPED

      Industry-leading conferences focused on affordable housing, tax credits, and more.

    • Legal Project Management

      Providing actionable information to support strategic decision-making.

    • Legally Green

      Teaming with clients to advance sustainable projects, mitigate the effects of climate change, and protect our planet.

    • Nixon Peabody Trust Company

      Offering a range of investment management and fiduciary services.

    • NP Capital Connector

      Bringing together companies and investors for tomorrow’s new deals.

    • NP Second Opinion

      Offering fresh insights on cases that are delayed, over budget, or off-target from the desired resolution.

    • NP Trial

      Courtroom-ready lawyers who can resolve disputes early on clients’ terms or prevail at trial before a judge or jury.

    • Social Impact

      Creating positive impact in our communities through increasing equity, access, and opportunity.

    • Women in Dealmaking

      We provide strategic counsel on complex corporate transactions and unite dynamic women in the dealmaking arena.

    1. Home
    2. Insights
    3. Alerts
    4. Personal jurisdiction examined in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.—Did SCOTUS go off the rails?

      Alerts

    Alert / Complex Disputes

    Personal jurisdiction examined in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.—Did SCOTUS go off the rails?

    June 30, 2023

    LinkedInX (Twitter)EmailCopy URL

    By Carolyn Nussbaum, Brock Seraphin, Matthew Costello and Erik GoergenSamuel Ryder (Legal Intern—Government Investigations and White Collar Defense Group) assisted with the preparation of this alert.

    Supreme Court upholds Pennsylvania law requiring that companies registered to do business in Pennsylvania agree to be sued in the Commonwealth.

    What’s the impact?

    • The Court’s holding may prompt other states to enact similar laws to try to broaden personal jurisdiction over companies that register to do business in their state.
    • Further litigation is likely on this issue including whether this and similar laws violate the Dormant Commerce Clause.

    DOWNLOAD

    PDF: Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

    On June 27, 2023, in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., No. 21-1168, 2023 WL 4187749, 600 U.S. ___ (June 27, 2023), an unlikely alliance of five Justices of the United States Supreme Court agreed that a Pennsylvania law requiring foreign corporations (those not headquartered or incorporated in the Commonwealth) to agree to be subject to any suit in its courts does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

    Background

    Robert Mallory, a former freight-car mechanic employed by Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (“Norfolk Southern”), sued Norfolk Southern under a federal workers’ compensation statute, claiming that exposure to carcinogens during his employment caused his subsequent cancer. Mr. Mallory had worked for Norfolk Southern for almost twenty years in Ohio and Virginia (but not Pennsylvania). While he had previously lived in Pennsylvania, Mr. Mallory was a Virginia resident when he initiated his lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court. Norfolk Southern was a Virginia corporation with its corporate headquarters there but registered to do business in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania law requires foreign corporations that register to do business in the Commonwealth to agree to appear in its courts on “any cause of action” against them. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5301(a)(2)(i),(b). Norfolk Southern moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the Pennsylvania court under this provision violated due process. Mr. Mallory responded that, along with Norfolk Southern’s “regular, systemic [and] extensive” operations in the Commonwealth, Norfolk Southern’s registration there constituted the company’s consent to personal jurisdiction. Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., No. 21-1168, slip op. at 3 (U.S. June 27, 2023) (quoting Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 266 A.3d 542, 562 (Pa. 2021)). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with Norfolk Southern, finding that the Pennsylvania law violates the Due Process Clause, even though a recent decision from the Georgia Supreme Court had rejected a similar due process challenge from a corporate defendant. See Mallory, 266 A.3d at 547, 560 n.13.

    The Supreme Court’s decision

    The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and held that the century-old decision of Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U.S. 93 (1917) was controlling precedent. Mallory, slip op. at 10. There, the Supreme Court held that an analogous Missouri statute did not deny a defendant due process. Pa. Fire Ins. Co., 243 U.S. at 95.

    Justice Gorsuch’s opinion (joined by Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, and Jackson, with Justice Jackson concurring in the result) held that Pennsylvania Fire remained good law, and the Pennsylvania law and the facts of this case fell within the scope of the rule of Pennsylvania Fire. Mallory, slip. op. at 10. The Court said that while International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) created specific personal jurisdiction (for suits that arise out of or relate to a corporate defendant’s activities in the forum state) and general jurisdiction (allowing any suit against a company in those states where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business), Pennsylvania Fire validated yet another basis for exercising personal jurisdiction: where out-of-state corporations consent to suit in the forum state in order to do business. As the Supreme Court reasoned, International Shoe and its progeny apply to the distinct situation where out-of-state corporations have not consented to in-state suits, but nevertheless were susceptible to suits based on the quality and nature of their activity in the forum. Id. at 14. Yet the Court took pains to limit its holding to the specific statutory scheme and the facts of Mallory, declining to “speculate whether any other statutory scheme and set of facts would suffice to establish consent to suit.” Id. at 12. Despite teasing the idea of “consent by registration,” the Court emphasized Norfolk Southern’s substantial connections to Pennsylvania, including the facts that Norfolk Southern managed more miles of track there than it did in any other State and employed more people in Pennsylvania than in Virginia. Id. at 20.

    The jurisdictional issue, however, may not yet be finally resolved. Justice Alito’s concurring opinion joined Justice Gorsuch’s opinion in concluding that subjecting Norfolk Southern to jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of “fair play and substantial justice,” describing it as a “large out-of-state corporation with substantial operations in a state.” Mallory, slip op. at 1 (Alito, J., concurring) (quoting Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316). Justice Alito cautioned that, in a future case, under different facts, the Pennsylvania law may still run afoul of the infrequently invoked Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine, which forbids state laws that overly inhibit interstate commerce. See id. at 1–2. Specifically, Justice Alito expressed concern that such a law might have a different impact on small businesses that lack sufficient resources to structure their operations to avoid excessive exposure to defending out-of-state lawsuits. Id. at 13. Justice Gorsuch’s opinion left room to argue this theory on remand, noting that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had not addressed the Dormant Commerce Clause argument and thus the issue was outside the grant of certiorari. Mallory, slip op. at 4 n.3 (plurality opinion) (citing Mallory, 266 A.3d at 559–60 nn. 9, 11).

    In dissent, Justice Barrett (joined by another interesting alliance of Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kagan, and Justice Kavanaugh) wrote that the Court’s holding “permit[s] state governments to circumvent constitutional limits,” flying in the face of the Due Process Clause. Mallory, slip op. at 1 (Barrett, J., dissenting). The dissent also disagreed with the validity of Pennsylvania Fire, because it viewed that decision as overruled by International Shoe, decided nearly thirty years later. Id. at 15. Justice Barrett described Justice Gorsuch’s attempt to distinguish International Shoe “as fictional as the old concept of ‘corporate presence,’” id. at 16 (citation omitted), and questioned the logic of the Court’s decision, suggesting that, “[a] State could defeat the Due Process Clause by adopting a law at odds with the Due Process Clause.” Id. at 6. The dissent warns that other states may now “manufacture ‘consent’” to personal jurisdiction “[b]y relabeling their long-arm statutes,” inviting “suits, like this one, with no connection whatsoever to the forum.” Id. at 1.

    Consequences of the decision

    Although few (if any) states have a statute like Pennsylvania’s, some predict, as the dissent recognizes, that additional states (including those considered to be friendly to plaintiffs), will accept the Court’s invitation to similarly condition registration to do business upon consent to general jurisdiction. Companies with multistate operations should monitor the states in which they are registered to do business for such legislation. Still unanswered is the question whether such law is constitutional as applied to a corporation with minimal operations within a state. But, for now, companies registered to do business in Pennsylvania and Georgia should understand that they may be subject to personal jurisdiction in the courts of those states for any suits of any sort. And, of course, we will all stay tuned to see whether the infrequently invoked Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine surfaces on remand of Mallory.

    Practices

    Complex DisputesLitigation

    Insights And Happenings

    • Press Release

      Nixon Peabody’s Carolyn Nussbaum selected as ‘Client Service All-Star’ by BTI Consulting

      June 4, 2024
    • Alert

      Supreme Court clarifies scope of Rule 10b-5(b) liability

      April 15, 2024
    • Press Release

      Experienced government investigations attorney S. Amy Spencer joins Nixon Peabody

      July 18, 2023
    The foregoing has been prepared for the general information of clients and friends of the firm. It is not meant to provide legal advice with respect to any specific matter and should not be acted upon without professional counsel. If you have any questions or require any further information regarding these or other related matters, please contact your regular Nixon Peabody LLP representative. This material may be considered advertising under certain rules of professional conduct.

    Subscribe to stay informed of the latest legal news, alerts, and business trends.Subscribe

    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni
    • Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Statement of Client Rights
    • Purchase Order Terms & Conditions
    • Nixon Peabody International LLC
    • PAL
    © 2025 Nixon Peabody. All rights reserved