Expanding the Boundaries of Personal Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

by Mark Ellis, M.B.A., J.D., Ph.D. | Alumni – Loyola University Chicago School of Law

The recent Supreme Court’s decision in the Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (2023) case marked a pivotal moment in the understanding of personal jurisdiction in relation to business registration within a state. This ruling affirmed that states have the authority to mandate that businesses consent to general personal jurisdiction as a condition of registering to operate within the state and designating an agent for legal service. This process is known as “registering.”

The implications of this decision extend beyond general personal jurisdiction to specific jurisdiction as well. Prior to the Mallory case, the prevailing view was that a defendant could be subject to general personal jurisdiction only if they had significant ties to the state, akin to being “at home” there. For individuals, this meant being domiciled in the state, while for corporations, it referred to their place of incorporation or primary business location, as set forth in earlier Supreme Court decisions (Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 2011; Daimler AG v. Bauman, 2014; BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 2017).

Mallory shifted this paradigm, ruling that a business can fall under a state’s general personal jurisdiction simply by registering to operate there, irrespective of whether it is incorporated or has its main business location in that state. This means the traditional “at home” requirement doesn’t apply in such scenarios, provided the business hasn’t registered in the state. However, this jurisdiction is contingent upon state law authorization. In instances where state statutes do not confer personal jurisdiction through registration, the jurisdiction would be considered invalid. Therefore, both state statutory authorization and adherence to constitutional principles are essential for establishing personal jurisdiction.

Although some state courts have previously declined to assert such jurisdiction, citing due process concerns, the Mallory decision challenges this stance. While these precedents have not been overturned, state courts might still deem the exercise of personal jurisdiction unconstitutional under state-specific due process considerations. Nonetheless, the Mallory ruling potentially broadens the scope for asserting personal jurisdiction over businesses based outside the state.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (2023) represents a significant shift in the landscape of personal jurisdiction in the United States. By allowing states to impose general personal jurisdiction over businesses simply through the act of registration, the decision moves away from the traditional “at home” standard. This ruling not only broadens the scope of jurisdiction for states over out-of-state defendants but also underscores the importance of compliance with state laws and constitutional principles in the context of business operations. The long-term implications of this decision will likely influence legal strategies for businesses and could potentially reshape the legal framework of interstate commerce and litigation.