February 4, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 35

Error message

  • Warning: Undefined variable $settings in include_once() (line 135 of /var/www/html/docroot/sites/default/settings.php).
  • Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in include_once() (line 135 of /var/www/html/docroot/sites/default/settings.php).

February 03, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 02, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Where Businesses Can Be Sued

The constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s “registration statute,” which requires corporations that register to do business in Pennsylvania consent to the “general personal jurisdiction” of Pennsylvania, was the subject of oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court on November 8, 2022.

In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., No. 21-1168, the justices heard argument on whether Pennsylvania may require companies that want to do business in Pennsylvania to consent to litigating in Pennsylvania state court no matter where the claim arose. Pennsylvania is the only state that expressly requires corporations to consent to its personal jurisdiction as part of the registration process.

General Personal Jurisdiction

Underlying the law of personal jurisdiction is whether it is “fair” to sue a person or corporation in a particular state.

Under general personal jurisdiction, the precept under consideration in Mallory, a state court has personal jurisdiction over any resident of that state. In Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014), the Supreme Court held that a corporation resides in any state where its connections are so continuous and systematic that they render the corporation “essentially at home” in the state. The most straightforward example is a corporation incorporated and headquartered in a specific state is a resident of, or resides in, that state.

Pennsylvania’s registration statute effectively lowers the bar for general personal jurisdiction. It requires corporations to consent to the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania state courts simply by registering to do business in Pennsylvania. Most states require that corporations register to do business in their state, but Pennsylvania is the only one that expressly requires corporations to consent to the state’s personal jurisdiction as part of the registration process.

State and federal courts are divided on whether simply registering to do business in a state subjects a company to the general jurisdiction of that state. State courts in New York and New Mexico have held that a corporation is not subject to general jurisdiction in a state just because it registered to do business there. The state courts of Georgia held the opposite: registering to do business in a state is enough to confer general personal jurisdiction.


The facts in Mallory show the paradoxical reach of Pennsylvania’s consent-by-registration law. Petitioner Robert Mallory, a Virginia resident, claims to have been exposed to toxic chemicals that caused him to develop cancer while working for Norfolk Southern Railway Company in Virginia. Mallory did not live or work in Pennsylvania nor did his alleged injury occur in Pennsylvania, but he sued in Pennsylvania state court under Pennsylvania’s consent-by-registration law.

Norfolk Southern challenged the state court’s jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held Pennsylvania’s registration statute was unconstitutional. It stated, “[A] court cannot subject a foreign corporation to general all-purpose jurisdiction based exclusively on the fact that it conducts business in the forum state.” Because allowing Pennsylvania courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over a company is a requirement of registering to do business in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reasoned that the company cannot be said to consent voluntarily to general personal jurisdiction.

Oral Argument

At oral argument, the justices appeared divided on the issue as it questioned both sides.

Justice Samuel Alito pressed Mallory’s attorney on fairness and whether consent to jurisdiction is voluntary if it is a condition of doing business in Pennsylvania. Similarly, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to reject Mallory’s argument that jurisdiction consent laws have a long history in American jurisprudence, stating that “history and tradition move on.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted the potential effect on businesses, warning that if “every state” enacts a similar statute, potential plaintiffs could sue in any state where the company does business no matter where the alleged harm occurred.

Justice Elena Kagan cited the seminal jurisdiction case International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), which, in her view, “obviates the need” for fictional consent such as Pennsylvania’s consent-by-registration scheme.

On the other hand, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she did not necessarily see a conflict between the Pennsylvania statute and International Shoe. Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that Norfolk Southern could not claim Pennsylvania coerced it to consent to jurisdiction, because the company has more employees and more miles of railroad track in Pennsylvania than in any other state.

Potential Impact on Employers

The decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway could affect employers that transact business in more than one state, particularly on where employees could sue. If the Supreme Court agrees that the Pennsylvania statute is constitutional, more states may require companies to consent to the broad jurisdiction of their courts through business registration. Any company that transacts business in multiple states would need to be prepared to defend a lawsuit in any state court where it registers to do business.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2023National Law Review, Volume XII, Number 321

About this Author


Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris is a Principal and Office Litigation Manager for the Orlando, Florida, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She is Co-Leader of the firm's Class Actions and Complex Litigation practice group. Her practice focuses exclusively on the representation of employers at the trial and appellate level in state and federal courts, as well as proceedings before administrative judges and agencies.

Ms. Adler-Paindiris has conducted over a dozen trials before juries and judges in state and federal courts. In addition, Ms. Adler has participated in...

Donald E. English, Jr. Jackson Lewis , Lawyer, Baltimore, Corporate Diversity Counseling General Employment Litigation Non-Competes and Protection Against Unfair Competition

Donald “Donny” E. English, Jr. is a Principal in the Baltimore, Maryland, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He has more than 17 years of experience litigating employment matters in state and federal courts. Mr. English also assists major corporations in the development and establishment of employment policies, procedures, and training programs. 

Mr. English advises and represents employers in a broad range of employment law matters, including those involving discrimination and harassment, wage and hour, wrongful termination, and retaliation claims. He also advises...

Greg Riolo Labor Lawyer Jackson Lewis
Office Managing Principal

Greg Riolo is the office managing principal of the Albany, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Greg has been with the firm since 1997 and concentrates his practice on employment-related litigation and counseling. He has litigated cases before state and federal courts and various administrative agencies on behalf of management, including claims of employment discrimination, harassment, civil rights, breach of contract, whistleblower, wage-hour and employee benefits. Greg also has appellate experience in the Appellate Division for the State of New York, the...

Stephanie E. Satterfield Office Managing Principal Jackson Lewis P.C.
Office Managing Principal

Stephanie E. Satterfield is the office managing principal of the Greenville, South Carolina, office and Charlotte, North Carolina, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Stephanie also serves on the firm’s Board of Directors and is co-leader of the Litigation practice group. She represents employers in employment litigation and advises businesses on practices and policies to foster employee engagement and avoid litigation.

Stephanie has handled all aspects of employment law but focuses on pay equity, sexual harassment training,...