Page:Mallory v. Norfolk Southern.pdf/19

16 v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186, 204 (1977).

Given all this, it is no wonder that we have already turned aside arguments very much like Norfolk Southern’s. In Burnham, the defendant contended that International Shoe implicitly overruled the traditional tag rule holding that individuals physically served in a State are subject to suit there for claims of any kind. 495 U. S., at 616 (plurality opinion). This Court rejected that submission. Instead, as Justice Scalia explained, International Shoe simply provided a “novel” way to secure personal jurisdiction that did nothing to displace other “traditional ones.” Id., at 619. What held true there must hold true here. Indeed, seven years after deciding International Shoe, the Court cited Pennsylvania Fire approvingly. Perkins v. ''Benguet Consol. Mining Co.'', 342 U. S. 437, 446, n. 6 (1952).

Norfolk Southern offers several replies, but none persuades. The company begins by pointing to this Court’s decision in Shaffer. There, as the company stresses, the Court indicated that “ ‘prior decisions … inconsistent with’ ” International Shoe “ ‘are overruled.’ ” Brief for Respondent 35