This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to BNSF Railway (Petitioner), according to BNSF Railway (Petitioner), bNSF Railway argues that the Montana Supreme Court’s finding of general personal jurisdiction over BNSF is incorrect because the court relied on systematic and continuous business activity and on Section 56 of the Federal Employers' Liability Act.
According to Ms. Murray, bNSF points out that it earns up to ten percent of its total revenue in Montana, a share that is disproportionately large compared with its operations in other states.
According to BNSF, bNSF relies on the Pope and Boyd cases, which the Supreme Court has used to hold that a railroad’s business activities in a state can create jurisdiction for suits arising elsewhere.
Background and question before the Court
Justices questioned whether BNSF is registered in Montana and what the plaintiff’s state of residence is, indicating that the Court is probing the factual basis for jurisdiction.
What each side argues
Petitioner (BNSF Railway)
According to BNSF Railway (Petitioner), according to BNSF Railway (Petitioner), bNSF contends that the Montana Supreme Court’s conclusions about general personal jurisdiction are wrong because they rely on systematic activity and Section 56 of the Federal Employers' Liability Act.
According to Ms. Murray, bNSF argues that its revenue share in Montana (up to ten percent) is disproportionately large, showing a substantial business presence in the state.
According to BNSF, bNSF relies on the Pope and Boyd cases, which support the view that a railroad’s business activities in a state can create jurisdiction for suits filed elsewhere.
Respondent (Kelli Tyrrell, Special Administrator)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced that the Court would hear argument in Case 16‑405, BNSF Railway v. Tyrrell.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether BNSF is registered in Montana.
Justice Ginsburg asked what the plaintiff’s state of residence is.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
- concurrent jurisdiction
- "Concurrent" usually means that it's not — it's a Federal claim, but it could be adjudicated in State as well as Federal court.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 9c324fa314e44c3b2a86-r1-86c8545503432c2b.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.