Page:Mallory v. Norfolk Southern.pdf/26

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023)
23

Opinion of Gorsuch, J.

pre-trial court orders, signing a contract with a forum selection clause, accepting an in-state benefit with jurisdictional strings attached—all these actions as well can carry with them profound consequences for personal jurisdiction. See Insurance Corp. of Ireland, 456 U. S., at 703–706 (collecting cases); see also post, at 2 (opinion of Jackson, J.).

The truth is, under our precedents a variety of “actions of the defendant” that may seem like technicalities nonetheless can “amount to a legal submission to the jurisdiction of a court.” Insurance Corp. of Ireland, 456 U. S., at 704–705; see also Brief for Stephen E. Sachs as Amicus Curiae 10. That was so before International Shoe, and it remains so today. Should we overrule them all? Taking Norfolk Southern’s argument seriously would require just that. But, tellingly, the company does not follow where its argument leads or even acknowledge its implications. Instead, Norfolk Southern asks us to pluck out and overrule just one longstanding precedent that it happens to dislike. We decline the invitation. Post, at 4 (opinion of Alito, J.). There is no fair play or substantial justice in that.[1] *

Not every case poses a new question. This case poses a very old question indeed—one this Court resolved more


  1. While various separate writings accompany this opinion, it should be apparent a majority of the Court today agrees that: Norfolk Southern consented to suit in Pennsylvania. Supra, at 10–11; post, at 2 (opinion of Alito, J.). Pennsylvania Fire therefore controls this case. Supra, at 11–12; post, at 2–4 (opinion of Alito, J.). Pennsylvania Fire’s rule for consent-based jurisdiction has not been overruled. Supra, at 13–14; post, at 4 (opinion of Alito, J.). International Shoe governs where a defendant has not consented to exercise of jurisdiction. Supra, at 14–15; post, at 4 (opinion of Alito, J.). Exercising jurisdiction here is hardly unfair. Supra, at 17–20; post, at 4–5 (opinion of Alito, J.). The federalism concerns in our due process cases have applied only when a defendant has not consented. Supra, at 21; post, at 7–8 (opinion of Alito, J.). Nor will this Court now overrule Pennsylvania Fire. Supra, at 21–23; post, at 4 (opinion of Alito, J.).