Supreme Court Decides Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., No. 21-1168, holding that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had erred in concluding that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U. S. 93 (1917), had been implicitly overruled by subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Robert Mallory is a former employee of Norfolk Southern Railway Company. After receiving a cancer diagnosis, he sued his former employer in Pennsylvania State Court, even though he resided in Virginia at the time he filed suit. Norfolk Southern contested personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania on constitutional grounds, arguing that jurisdiction was lacking because Mallory alleged his carcinogenic exposure occurred in Ohio and Virginia; he resided in Virginia; and Norfolk Southern was incorporated in and headquartered there, as well. Mallory argued that those facts were irrelevant because Norfolk Southern had registered to do business in Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania law requires out-of-state companies that register to do business in the Commonwealth to agree to appear in its courts on “any cause of action” against them.

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld a similar state law in Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U. S. 93 (1917), but concluded that that decision had been implicitly overruled by subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. 

The Supreme Court vacated and remanded, holding that it was improper for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to decline to follow Pennsylvania Fire based on its view that that decision had been implicitly overruled. If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, the Court explained, a lower court should follow the case which directly controls, and should leave to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.

Justice Gorsuch authored the opinion of the Court. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, in which the Chief Justice, Justice Kagan, and Justice Kavanaugh joined.