•  
  •  
 

University of Miami Business Law Review

Document Type

Note

Abstract

This Note examines the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., advocating for legislative intervention by Congress to mitigate its adverse effects on interstate commerce. The Court revived a pre-International Shoe v. Washingtonprecedent, validating a Pennsylvania statute that imposes general personal jurisdiction on non-resident businesses registered in the state. Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion, supported by a diverse coalition of Justices, underscored the constitutionality of the statute under the Due Process Clause, with Justice Jackson emphasizing the principle of jurisdictional waiver via business registration. Conversely, Justice Alito’s concurrence, while agreeing on Due Process grounds, raised concerns about the statute’s potential violation of the dormant Commerce Clause, leaving room for future challenges.

This decision has significant ramifications, particularly the likelihood of other states enacting similar statutes, potentially leading to forum shopping and jurisdictional overreach. This Note explores these consequences in detail. Part I dissects the Mallory decision and its various opinions. Part II analyzes the broad criteria for “doing business” and state registration requirements. Part III assesses potential strategies to counteract the decision’s impact, emphasizing the insufficiency of judicial remedies. Lastly, Part IV considers the probability of dormant Commerce Clause challenges, as hinted by Justice Alito. This Note also proposes federal legislative action to establish a uniform standard for interstate personal jurisdiction or restrict such statutes to specific jurisdiction. Ultimately, arguing that Mallory disrupts established jurisdictional principles and conflicts with recent trends limiting general personal jurisdiction to entities’ “home” states, thus complicating the legal landscape established by prior precedents.

Download

Share

COinS