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.

Recent Posts

Fuld: 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 Reading

Second Circuit Rejects Consent-Based Jurisdiction over PLO

Last Friday, the Second Circuit issued much-anticipated decisions in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Organization, cases brought by U.S. nationals against the Palestine Liberation Organization (“PLO”) and Palestinian Authority (“PA”) for injuries sustained during terrorist attacks in Israel. After the Second Circuit held in an earlier decision in Waldman that…

Continue Reading

Supreme Court Roundup (October Term 2022)

During its 2022 Term, which ended four weeks ago, the Supreme Court decided five cases with important implications for transnational litigation. The questions included whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) applies to criminal proceedings; the standard for aiding and abetting under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA); whether states may exercise general personal jurisdiction over foreign…

Continue Reading