On November 22, 2023, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the Pennsylvania Superior Court to review and reverse a trial court decision finding Pennsylvania’s consent by registration statute—which conditions the privilege of doing business in the State on an out-of-state corporation’s submission to general personal jurisdiction—constitutional. In this case, the plaintiffs assert that they developed Parkinson’s disease from exposure to Syngenta’s herbicide and sued Syngenta in Pennsylvania state court even though a majority of the plaintiffs’ claims and Syngenta itself have no significant connection to the state. Syngenta objected to the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction on the ground that Pennsylvania’s consent by registration statute violates the U.S. Constitution. The trial court, however, denied Syngenta’s request to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.
We argue that the Pennsylvania Superior Court should hear the case to address a question left unresolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 143 S. Ct. 2028 (2023): whether Pennsylvania’s consent by registration statute violates the dormant Commerce Clause. We maintain that the statute violates the dormant Commerce Clause by interfering with the efficiency of company operations and forcing companies to defend suits in locations where alleged injuries did not occur and neither party is a resident. In addition, Pennsylvania’s exercise of jurisdiction over residents of another state in cases asserting claims unconnected to the State raises federalism concerns as that conduct should be rightfully policed by some other State. Pushing back against expansion of a state court’s jurisdiction to hear such cases is important to prevent plaintiffs from forum shopping to plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions.