The Supreme Court struggled to decide whether Pennsylvania can require corporations to consent to being sued in its courts — by anyone, for conduct anywhere — as a condition of doing business in the state, the New York Times reported. Only Pennsylvania has such a law, but if the court rules that it is constitutional, other states will most likely enact similar ones, giving injured consumers, workers and others more choices about where to sue and subjecting corporations to suits in courts they may view as hostile to business. The case, Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway, No. 21-1168, was brought by Robert Mallory, a Virginia man who says he developed cancer from exposure to toxic chemicals while working in Virginia and Ohio for the Norfolk Southern Railway Company, which was based and incorporated in Virginia. The question in the case is whether he can sue in a third state with no concrete connection to the suit — Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court has long said that corporations may be sued where they are incorporated or where their headquarters are. And they may be sued in particular cases if the plaintiff’s claims are related to the defendant’s contacts with the state. Mr. Mallory relied on none of those bases for jurisdiction. Rather, he pointed to a Pennsylvania law that requires companies that do business in the state to consent to being sued there. Carter G. Phillips, a lawyer for the railroad, said that putting his client to that choice was unconstitutional, but Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said Norfolk Southern had made a conscious decision. “There’s no doubt the railroad understood by filing that piece of paper that it was subject to this law,” he said. (Subscription required.)
