The Court held that Pennsylvania's registration statute, which requires non-Pennsylvania companies registering to do business within the state to accept general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania courts, does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Although Mallory does not have transnational facts, it may have major implications for personal jurisdiction in transnational cases. The Court's 2014 decision in Daimler A.G. v. Bauman largely eliminated general jurisdiction over foreign corporations in U.S. courts. Corporate registration statutes, however, may provide plaintiffs with an alternative basis for jurisdiction.
Fuld Preview: AALS Panel on Mallory and More
Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Fuld v. Palestinian Liberation Organization. TLB’s prior coverage of Fuld can be found here. Among the key issues in Fuld is whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act’s scheme for consent-based personal jurisdiction is constitutional. In 2023, the Supreme Court decided…
Continue ReadingArbitration Enforcement and Consent
This Term, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could have profound ramifications for international arbitration: CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. The petitioners are seeking to enforce an arbitration award they won against a state-owned company in India. The district court enforced the award, relying on the New York Convention and the…
Continue ReadingFuld: Right for the Wrong Reason
In a major decision interpreting Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (2023), the Second Circuit in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization held that personal jurisdiction may not be established by relying on the “deemed consent” provision of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (“PSJVTA”). A thorough review of the decision can…
Continue ReadingAaron Tang, Originalism on Trial at the Supreme Court, Slate (Nov. 3, 2022)
Matt Horning, Recapping Media Coverage of Mallory,TLB (Nov. 16, 2022)