October Term 2022 · Docket 21-1168
Does registering a foreign company in a state create consent to jurisdiction?
A railroad company challenges a Pennsylvania law that treats business registration as consent to local court jurisdiction.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Keller argued that states enacted consent-by-registration laws as early as 1827.
Mr. Phillips argued that the Due Process Clause requires a relationship among the defendant, state, and litigation.
questions_and_answers
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 102, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 102, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 19-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 123, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 123, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 7-35 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 7-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 17-49 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 17-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 27-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 55-35 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 55-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 53-1 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 53-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 37-51 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 37-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 55-1 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 55-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 43-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 43-23
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Norfolk Southern Railway argues that registering to do business in Pennsylvania does not consent to jurisdiction for unrelated claims. Mallory argues that the state law creates valid consent for all local disputes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 102, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 102, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 123, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 123, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 55-35 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 55-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 7-15
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 8, 2022.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 7-19
What each side wants
Mallory wants the Court to uphold the state law as valid consent.
Norfolk Southern wants the Court to strike down the law as unconstitutional.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 102, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 102, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 123, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 123, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 55-35 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 55-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 7-15
What each side says
Mallory argues that historical state laws established consent-by-registration as a valid legal practice.
Norfolk Southern argues that registration does not imply consent to jurisdiction for unrelated claims.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 102, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 102, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 123, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 123, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 55-35 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 55-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 7-15
What the justices asked
Justice Kagan asked if registration papers explicitly state consent to jurisdiction.
Justice Alito asked if the historical argument requires a settled practice of upholding jurisdiction by consent in foreign cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 19-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 7-35 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 7-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 17-49 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 17-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 27-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 53-1 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 53-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 37-51 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 37-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 55-1 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 55-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 43-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 43-23
Why it matters
This case determines whether states can use business registration to assert jurisdiction over foreign companies for unrelated disputes. The outcome affects how companies structure their legal exposure across state lines.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 102, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 102, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 123, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 123, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 55-35 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 55-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 7-15
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 19-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 7-35 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 7-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 17-49 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 17-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 27-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 53-1 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 53-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 37-51 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 37-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 55-1 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 55-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 43-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 43-23
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 102, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 102, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 123, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 123, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 55-35 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 55-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 102, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 102, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 123, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 123, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 55-35 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 55-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 7-15
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.