Over the last 10 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued landmark opinions that have clarified the nature and scope of personal jurisdiction over a corporate defendant. These opinions have focused largely on questions of general or specific jurisdiction. The court has not yet addressed the constitutional limits of a corporate defendant’s consent to personal jurisdiction under its modern jurisprudence. On Nov. 8, in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway, 266 A.3d 542 (Pa. 2021), cert. granted, 142 S. Ct. 2646 (April 25, 2022), the court heard argument on whether a state can require a foreign corporation to consent to general jurisdiction when it registers to do business in the state. The court’s decision will undoubtedly have a significant impact on products liability and mass tort litigation, and could potentially reshape modern principles of personal jurisdiction.

Current Principles of Personal Jurisdiction

‘International Shoe’ and its Progeny. In its seminal decision International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a defendant’s liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgment of a forum in which the defendant has insufficient “contacts, ties, or relations.” Since International Shoe, the focus on a corporate defendant’s relationship with the forum state led to the recognition of two kinds of personal jurisdiction: specific and general. See Ford Motor v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1024 (2021). Specific jurisdiction requires an adequate connection between the forum state and the underlying case or controversy. General jurisdiction extends to any and all claims brought against a corporation, even with no forum connection.