Mallory v. Norfolk Southern/Opinion of Justice Alito
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 21–1168
ROBERT MALLORY, PETITIONER v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, EASTERN DISTRICT
[June 27, 2023]
Justice Alito, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
The sole question before us is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a large out-of-state corporation with substantial operations in a State complies with a registration requirement that conditions the right to do business in that State on the registrant’s submission to personal jurisdiction in any suits that are brought there. I agree with the Court that the answer to this question is no. Assuming that the Constitution allows a State to impose such a registration requirement, I see no reason to conclude that such suits violate the corporation’s right to “ ‘fair play and substantial justice.’ ” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 316 (1945).
I am not convinced, however, that the Constitution permits a State to impose such a submission-to-jurisdiction requirement. A State’s assertion of jurisdiction over lawsuits with no real connection to the State may violate fundamental principles that are protected by one or more constitutional provisions or by the very structure of the federal system that the Constitution created. At this point in the development of our constitutional case law, the most appropriate home for these principles is the so-called dormant Commerce Clause. Norfolk Southern appears to have asserted a Commerce Clause claim below, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not address it. See 266 A. 3d 542, 559–560, nn. 9, 11 (2021). Presumably, Norfolk Southern can renew the challenge on remand. I therefore agree that we should vacate the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
I
When Virginia resident Robert Mallory initiated this suit, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, a railroad that was at that time incorporated and headquartered in Virginia, had long operated rail lines and conducted related business in Pennsylvania. Consistent with Pennsylvania law, the company had registered as a “foreign” corporation, most recently in 1998. 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. §411(a) (2014); App. 1–2. Then, as now, Pennsylvania law expressly provided that “qualification as a foreign corporation” was a “sufficient basis” for Pennsylvania courts “to exercise general personal jurisdiction” over an out-of-state company. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301(a)(2)(i) (2019). Norfolk Southern is a sophisticated entity, and we may “presum[e]” that it “acted with knowledge” of state law when it registered. Commercial Mut. Accident Co. v. Davis, 213 U. S. 245, 254 (1909). As a result, we may also presume that by registering, it consented to all valid conditions imposed by state law.
I do not understand Norfolk Southern to challenge this basic premise. Tr. of Oral Arg. 62 (acknowledging that “the railroad understood by filing [registration paperwork] that it was subject to [Pennsylvania’s general jurisdiction] law”). Instead, Norfolk Southern argues that giving force to the company’s consent would violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Power Mfg. Co. v. Saunders, 274 U. S. 490, 496–497 (1927).
That argument is foreclosed by our precedent. We addressed this question more than a century ago in Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U. S. 93 (1917). There, an Arizona mining company sued a Pennsylvania insurance company in a Missouri court, alleging claims arising from events in Colorado. Id., at 94. The Pennsylvania insurance company had “obtained a license to do business in Missouri,” and so had complied with a Missouri statute requiring the company to execute a power of attorney consenting to service of process on the state insurance superintendent in exchange for licensure. Ibid. The Missouri Supreme Court had previously construed such powers of attorney as consent to jurisdiction in Missouri for all claims, including those arising from transactions outside the State. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 267 Mo. 524, 549–550, 184 S. W. 999, 1003–1005 (1916) (citing State ex rel. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Grimm, 239 Mo. 135, 159–171, 143 S. W. 483, 490–494 (1911)). Because the insurance company had executed the power of attorney to obtain its license, the court held that Missouri had jurisdiction over the company in that suit. 267 Mo., at 610, 184 S. W., at 1024. We affirmed in a brief opinion, holding that the construction of Missouri’s statute and its application to the Pennsylvania insurance company under the circumstances of the case did not violate due process. Pennsylvania Fire, 243 U. S., at 95.
The parallels between Pennsylvania Fire and the case before us are undeniable. In both, a large company incorporated in one State was actively engaged in business in another State. In connection with that business, both companies took steps that, under the express terms or previous authoritative construction of state law, were understood as consent to the State’s jurisdiction in suits on all claims, no matter where the events underlying the suit took place. In both cases, an out-of-state plaintiff sued the out-of-state company, alleging claims unrelated to the company’s forum-state conduct. And in both, the out-of-state company objected, arguing that holding it to the terms of its consent would violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In Pennsylvania Fire, we held that there was no due process violation in these circumstances. Given the near-complete overlap of material facts, that holding, unless it has been overruled, is binding here.
Norfolk Southern has not persuaded me that Pennsylvania Fire has been overruled. While we have infrequently invoked that decision’s due process holding, we have never expressly overruled it. Nor can I conclude that it has been impliedly overruled. See post, at 15–16 (Barrett, J., dissenting). Norfolk Southern cites the International Shoe line of cases, but those cases involve constitutional limits on jurisdiction over non-consenting corporations. See International Shoe, 326 U. S., at 317; Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, 564 U. S. 915, 927–928 (2011); Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U. S. 117, 129 (2014); BNSF R. Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U. S. 402, 415 (2017) (declining to consider defendant’s alleged consent because court below did not reach it). Consent is a separate basis for personal jurisdiction. Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U. S. 694, 703 (1982); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U. S. 462, 472, n. 14 (1985); J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U. S. 873, 880–881 (2011) (plurality opinion). Pennsylvania Fire’s holding, insofar as it is predicated on the out-of-state company’s consent, is not “inconsistent” with International Shoe or its progeny. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186, 212, n. 39 (1977).
Nor would I overrule Pennsylvania Fire in this case, as Norfolk Southern requests. At the least, Pennsylvania Fire’s holding does not strike me as “egregiously wrong” in its application here. Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part) (slip op., at 7). Requiring Norfolk Southern to defend against Mallory’s suit in Pennsylvania, as opposed to in Virginia, is not so deeply unfair that it violates the railroad’s constitutional right to due process. International Shoe, 326 U. S., at 316. The company has extensive operations in Pennsylvania, 266 A. 3d, at 562–563; see also ante, at 17–20; has availed itself of the Pennsylvania courts on countless occasions, Brief for Academy of Rail Labor Attorneys as Amicus Curiae 4–5 (collecting cases); and had clear notice that Pennsylvania considered its registration as consent to general jurisdiction, 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. §411(a); 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301(a)(2)(i). Norfolk Southern’s “conduct and connection with [Pennsylvania] are such that [it] should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286, 297 (1980).
If having to defend this suit in Pennsylvania seems unfair to Norfolk Southern, it is only because it is hard to see Mallory’s decision to sue in Philadelphia as anything other than the selection of a venue that is reputed to be especially favorable to tort plaintiffs.[1] But we have never held that the Due Process Clause protects against forum shopping. Perhaps for that understandable reason, no party has suggested that we go so far.
For these reasons, I agree that Pennsylvania Fire controls our decision here, but I stress that it does so due to the clear overlap with the facts of this case.
II
A
While that is the end of the case before us, it is not the end of the story for registration-based jurisdiction. We have long recognized that the Constitution restricts a State’s power to reach out and regulate conduct that has little if any connection with the State’s legitimate interests. This principle, an “obviou[s]” and “necessary result” of our constitutional order, is not confined to any one clause or section, but is expressed in the very nature of the federal system that the Constitution created and in numerous provisions that bear on States’ interactions with one another. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Head, 234 U. S. 149, 161 (1914).[2]
The dissent suggests that we apply this principle through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, post, at 6–8, and there is support for this argument in our case law, if not in the ordinary meaning of the provision’s wording. By its terms, the Due Process Clause is about procedure, but over the years, it has become a refuge of sorts for constitutional principles that are not “procedural” but would otherwise be homeless as the result of having been exiled from the provisions in which they may have originally been intended to reside. This may be true, for example, with respect to the protection of substantive rights that might otherwise be guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 754–759 (2010) (plurality opinion); id., at 808–812 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). And in a somewhat similar way, our due process decisions regarding personal jurisdiction have often invoked respect for federalism as a factor in their analyses.
In our first decision holding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects a civil defendant from suit in certain fora, the Court proclaimed that “no State can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without its territory.” Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 722 (1878). “The several States,” the Court explained, “are of equal dignity and authority, and the independence of one implies the exclusion of power from all others.” Ibid. The Court warned that, in certain circumstances, a State’s exercise of jurisdiction over non-residents would be “an encroachment upon the independence of [another] State” and a “usurpation” of that State’s authority. Id., at 723. And the Court noted that this was not a newly-developed doctrine, but reflected “well-established principles of public law” that “ha[d] been frequently expressed … in opinions of eminent judges, and … carried into adjudications in numerous cases.” Id., at 722, 724; see, e.g., D’Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165, 176 (1851); Picquet v. Swan, 19 F. Cas. 609, 612 (No. 11,134) (CC Mass. 1828) (Story, J.).
Our post-International Shoe decisions have continued to recognize that constitutional restrictions on state court jurisdiction “are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation,” but reflect “territorial limitations” on state power. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235, 251 (1958); see also World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U. S., at 292 (in addition to “protect[ing] the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum,” due process “acts to ensure that the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system”); id., at 293 (“The sovereignty of each State …implie[s] a limitation on the sovereignty of all of its sister States—a limitation express or implicit in both the original scheme of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment”); J. McIntyre Machinery, 564 U. S., at 884 (plurality opinion) (if a “State were to assert jurisdiction in an inappropriate case, it would upset the federal balance, which posits that each State has a sovereignty that is not subject to unlawful intrusion by other States”). And we have recognized that in some circumstances, “federalism interest[s] may be decisive” in the due process analysis. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty., 582 U. S. 255, 263 (2017).
Despite these many references to federalism in due process decisions, there is a significant obstacle to addressing those concerns through the Fourteenth Amendment here: we have never held that a State’s assertion of jurisdiction unconstitutionally intruded on the prerogatives of another State when the defendant had consented to jurisdiction in the forum State. Indeed, it is hard to see how such a decision could be justified. The Due Process Clause confers a right on “person[s],” Amdt. 14, §1, not States. If a person voluntarily waives that right, that choice should be honored. See Insurance Corp. of Ireland, 456 U. S., at 703; ante, at 2–3 (Jackson, J., concurring).
B
1
The federalism concerns that this case presents fall more naturally within the scope of the Commerce Clause.[3] “By its terms, the Commerce Clause grants Congress the power ‘[t]o regulate Commerce … among the several States.’ ” Raymond Motor Transp., Inc. v. Rice, 434 U. S. 429, 440 (1978) (quoting Art. I, §8, cl. 3). But this Court has long held that the Clause includes a negative component, the so-called dormant Commerce Clause, that “prohibits state laws that unduly restrict interstate commerce.” Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas, 588 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2019) (slip op., at 6–7); see, e.g., , 12 How. 299, 318–319 (1852); Willson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Co., 2 Pet. 245, 252 (1829).
While the notion that the Commerce Clause restrains States has been the subject of “thoughtful critiques,” the concept is “deeply rooted in our case law,” Tennessee Wine, 588 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7), and vindicates a fundamental aim of the Constitution: fostering the creation of a national economy and avoiding the every-State-for-itself practices that had weakened the country under the Articles of Confederation. See Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U. S. 322, 325–326 (1979); Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U. S. 324, 335–336 (1989). The Framers “might have thought [that other provisions] would fill that role,” but “at this point in the Court’s history, no provision other than the Commerce Clause could easily do the job.” Tennessee Wine, 588 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8).[4]
In its negative aspects, the Commerce Clause serves to “mediate [the States’] competing claims of sovereign authority” to enact regulations that affect commerce among the States. National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U. S. ___, ___ (2023) (slip op., at 14). The doctrine recognizes that “one State’s power to impose burdens on … interstate market[s] … is not only subordinate to the federal power over interstate commerce, but is also constrained by the need to respect the interests of other States.” BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U. S. 559, 571 (1996) (citing Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 194–196 (1824)). It is especially appropriate to look to the dormant Commerce Clause in considering the constitutionality of the authority asserted by Pennsylvania’s registration scheme. Because the right of an out-of-state corporation to do business in another State is based on the dormant Commerce Clause, it stands to reason that this doctrine may also limit a State’s authority to condition that right. See Granholm v. Heald, 544 U. S. 460, 472 (2005); H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525, 539 (1949).
2
This Court and other courts have long examined assertions of jurisdiction over out-of-state companies in light of interstate commerce concerns.[5] Consider Davis v. Farmers Co-operative Equity Co., 262 U. S. 312 (1923), a case very much like the one now before us. In Davis, a Kansas company sued a Kansas railroad in Minnesota on a claim that was “in no way connected with Minnesota.” Id., at 314. Jurisdiction over the railroad was based on its compliance with a state statute regulating the in-state activities of out-of-state corporations: the railroad maintained a soliciting agent in Minnesota, and the Minnesota Supreme Court had interpreted state law as compelling out-of-state carriers, as a “condition of maintaining a soliciting agent,” to “submit to suit” in Minnesota on any “cause of action, wherever it may have arisen.” Id., at 315.
The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld jurisdiction against the railroad, but we reversed, holding that Minnesota’s condition “impos[ed] upon interstate commerce a serious and unreasonable burden, which renders the statute obnoxious to the [C]ommerce [C]lause.” Ibid. “By requiring from interstate carriers general submission to suit,” Minnesota’s statute “unreasonably obstruct[ed], and unduly burden[ed], interstate commerce.” Id., at 317.[6]
Although we have since refined our Commerce Clause framework, the structural constitutional principles underlying these decisions are unchanged, and the Clause remains a vital constraint on States’ power over out-of-state corporations.
C
In my view, there is a good prospect that Pennsylvania’s assertion of jurisdiction here—over an out-of-state company in a suit brought by an out-of-state plaintiff on claims wholly unrelated to Pennsylvania—violates the Commerce Clause.
Under our modern framework, a state law may offend the Commerce Clause’s negative restrictions in two circumstances: when the law discriminates against interstate commerce or when it imposes “undue burdens” on interstate commerce. South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 7). Discriminatory state laws are subject to “ ‘a virtually per se rule of invalidity.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Granholm, 544 U. S., at 476). “[O]nce a state law is shown to discriminate against interstate commerce ‘either on its face or in practical effect,’ ” the law’s proponent must “demonstrate both that the statute ‘serves a legitimate local purpose,’ and that this purpose could not be served as well by available nondiscriminatory means.” Maine v. Taylor, 477 U. S. 131, 138 (1986). Justification of a discriminatory law faces a “high” bar to overcome the presumption of invalidity. New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach, 486 U. S. 269, 278 (1988). Laws that “ ‘even-handedly’ ” regulate to advance “ ‘a legitimate local public interest’ ” are subject to a looser standard. Wayfair, 585 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7). These laws will be upheld “ ‘unless the burden imposed on [interstate] commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.’ ” Ibid. In these circumstances, “ ‘the question becomes one of degree,’ ” and “ ‘the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will … depend on the nature of the local interest involved.’ ” Raymond Motor Transp., 434 U. S., at 441. See also Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137, 142 (1970).
There is reason to believe that Pennsylvania’s registration-based jurisdiction law discriminates against out-of-state companies.[7] But at the very least, the law imposes a “significant burden” on interstate commerce by “[r]equiring a foreign corporation … to defend itself with reference to all transactions,” including those with no forum connection. Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., 486 U. S. 888, 893 (1988); see, e.g., Davis, 262 U. S., at 315–317 (burden in these circumstances is “serious and unreasonable,” “heavy,” and “undu[e]”); Michigan Central R. Co. v. Mix, 278 U. S. 492, 495 (1929) (burden is “heavy”); Denver & Rio Grande Western R. Co. v. Terte, 284 U. S. 284, 287 (1932) (burden is “serious”); Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Wells, 265 U. S. 101, 103 (1924) (jurisdiction “interfered unreasonably with interstate commerce”).
The foreseeable consequences of the law make clear why this is so. Aside from the operational burdens it places on out-of-state companies, Pennsylvania’s scheme injects intolerable unpredictability into doing business across state borders. Large companies may be able to manage the patchwork of liability regimes, damages caps, and local rules in each State, but the impact on small companies, which constitute the majority of all U. S. corporations, could be devastating.[8] Large companies may resort to creative corporate structuring to limit their amenability to suit. Small companies may prudently choose not to enter an out-of-state market due to the increased risk of remote litigation. Some companies may forgo registration altogether, preferring to risk the consequences rather than expand their exposure to general jurisdiction. “No one benefits from this ‘efficient breach’ of corporate-registration laws”: corporations must manage their added risk, and plaintiffs face challenges in serving unregistered corporations. Brief for Tanya Monestier as Amicus Curiae 16. States, meanwhile, “would externalize the costs of [their] plaintiff-friendly regimes.” Brief for Stephen E. Sachs as Amicus Curiae 26.
Given these serious burdens, to survive Commerce Clause scrutiny under this Court’s framework, the law must advance a “ ‘legitimate local public interest’ ” and the burdens must not be “ ‘clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.’ ” Wayfair, 585 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7). But I am hard-pressed to identify any legitimate local interest that is advanced by requiring an out-of-state company to defend a suit brought by an out-of-state plaintiff on claims wholly unconnected to the forum State. A State certainly has a legitimate interest in regulating activities conducted within its borders, which may include providing a forum to redress harms that occurred within the State. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U. S. 408, 422 (2003); BMW of North America, 517 U. S., at 568–569; Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352, 356 (1927). A State also may have an interest “in providing its residents with a convenient forum for redressing injuries inflicted by out-of-state actors.” Burger King, 471 U. S., at 473. But a State generally does not have a legitimate local interest in vindicating the rights of non-residents harmed by out-of-state actors through conduct outside the State. See, e.g., Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U. S. 624, 644 (1982). With no legitimate local interest served, “there is nothing to be weighed … to sustain the law.” Ibid. And even if some legitimate local interest could be identified, I am skeptical that any local benefits of the State’s assertion of jurisdiction in these circumstances could overcome the serious burdens on interstate commerce that it imposes. See, e.g., id., at 643–646; Raymond Motor Transp., 434 U. S., at 444–446. *** Because Pennsylvania Fire resolves this case in favor of petitioner Mallory and no Commerce Clause challenge is before us, I join the Court’s opinion as stated in Parts I and III–B, and agree that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.
- ↑ See, e.g., U. S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, Nuclear Verdicts: Trends, Causes, and Solutions 20 (2022); M. Behrens & C. Silverman, Litigation Tourism in Pennsylvania: Is Venue Reform Needed?, 22 Widener L. J. 29, 30–31 (2012).
- ↑ See, e.g., Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478, 494 (1855); Bonaparte v. Tax Court, 104 U. S. 592, 594 (1882); Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 669 (1892); Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n of Cal., 294 U. S. 532, 540 (1935); Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U. S. 511, 521–523 (1935); BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U. S. 559, 571–572, and n. 16 (1996); State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U. S. 408, 422 (2003).
- ↑ Analyzing these concerns under the Commerce Clause has the additional advantage of allowing Congress to modify the degree to which States should be able to entertain suits involving out-of-state parties and conduct. If Congress disagrees with our judgment on this question, it “has the authority to change the … rule” under its own Commerce power, subject, of course, to any other relevant constitutional limit. South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2018) (slip op., at 17–18); see also Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona ex rel. Sullivan, 325 U. S. 761, 769–770 (1945).
- ↑ In the past, the Court recognized that the Import-Export Clause, Art. I, §10, cl. 2, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. IV, §2, might restrict state regulations that interfere with the national economy. See, e.g., Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 445–449 (1827) (reading Import-Export Clause to prohibit state laws imposing duties on “importations from a sister State”); Almy v. California, 24 How. 169, 175 (1861) (applying Import-Export Clause to invalidate state law taxing gold and silver shipments between States); Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385, 396, and n. 26 (1948) (observing that the Privileges and Immunities Clause guarantees out-of-state citizens the right to do business in a State on equal terms with state citizens (citing Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418 (1871))). But the Court has since narrowed the scope of these provisions. See Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123, 136–137 (1869) (holding that the Import-Export Clause applies only to international trade); Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization of Cal., 451 U. S. 648, 656 (1981) (observing that “the Privileges and Immunities Clause is inapplicable to corporations” (citing Hemphill v. Orloff, 277 U. S. 537, 548–550 (1928))). Whether or not these restrictive interpretations are correct as an original matter, they are entrenched. Unless we overrule them, we must look elsewhere if “a national economic union unfettered by state-imposed limitations on commerce” is to be preserved. Healy, 491 U. S., at 336.
- ↑ See, e.g., Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Wells, 265 U. S. 101, 103 (1924); Michigan Central R. Co. v. Mix, 278 U. S. 492, 494–495 (1929); Denver & Rio Grande Western R. Co. v. Terte, 284 U. S. 284, 287 (1932); Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Kepner, 314 U. S. 44, 50–51 (1941); Moss v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 157 F. 2d 1005, 1007 (CA2 1946); Kern v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. R. Co., 204 Ind. 595, 601–604, 185 N. E. 446, 448–449 (1933); Hayman v. Southern Pacific Co., 278 S. W. 2d 749, 753 (Mo. 1955); White v. Southern Pacific Co., 386 S. W. 2d 6, 7–9 (Mo. 1965).
- ↑ Because we resolved the case under the Commerce Clause, we declined to consider the railroad’s Fourteenth Amendment challenges. Davis v. Farmers Co-operative Equity Co., 262 U. S. 312, 318 (1923).
- ↑ See, e.g., J. Preis, The Dormant Commerce Clause as a Limit on Personal Jurisdiction, 102 Iowa L. Rev. 138–140 (2016). A state law discriminates against interstate commerce if its “ ‘practical effect’ ” is to disadvantage out-of-state companies to the benefit of in-state competitors. Maine v. Taylor, 477 U. S. 131, 138 (1986); see United Haulers Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, 550 U. S. 330, 338 (2007). Pennsylvania’s law seems to discriminate against out-of-state companies by forcing them to increase their exposure to suits on all claims in order to access Pennsylvania’s market while Pennsylvania companies generally face no reciprocal burden for expanding operations into another State.
- ↑ Congressional Research Service, M. Keightley & J. Hughes, Pass-Throughs, Corporations, and Small Businesses: A Look at Firm Size 4–5 (2018) (in 2015, 62% of S corporations and 55% of C corporations had fewer than five employees).