Abstract
[As the 2022 Supreme Court term waned, the press and public waited with trepidation or excitement for noteworthy cases that addressed important policy questions, including affirmative action, student loan forgiveness, and conflicts between religious freedom and gay rights. Fewer people shared the concerns of Civil Procedure scholars who anxiously awaited the Court’s decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. For over a decade, the Court found that states violated due process in asserting personal jurisdiction over various defendants despite the lack of any meaningful burden on the defendant’s ability to defend against claims in the plaintiff’s choice of forum. Mallory raised concerns because of some of the Justices’ questions during oral argument and because the Court did not issue its decision until the end of the term. This led to speculation that the Court was about to radically alter its due process analysis in personal jurisdiction cases based on the original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Recommended Citation
Michael Vitiello and Daniel Croxall,
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., Due Process and Strange Bedfellows,
89 Mo. L. Rev.
(2024)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol89/iss1/8