Page:Mallory v. Norfolk Southern.pdf/64

18 precedent. Relying on a factsheet downloaded from the internet, for instance, the plurality argues that Norfolk Southern is such a “part of ‘the Pennsylvania Community,’ ” and does so much business there, that its “presence” in Pennsylvania is enough to require it to stand for suits having nothing to do with the Commonwealth. ; see also (opinion of ). In Daimler, however, we roundly rejected the plaintiff’s request that we “approve the exercise of general jurisdiction in every State in which a corporation ‘engages in a substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business.’ ” 571 U. S., at 138. The established test—which the plurality barely acknowledges—is whether the corporation is “at home” in the State. “A corporation that operates in many places,” and must therefore register in just as many, “can scarcely be deemed at home in all of them.” Id., at 140, n. 20.

Critics of Daimler and Goodyear may be happy to see them go. See, e.g., Ford Motor, 592 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1) (, concurring in judgment); id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 8–9) (, joined by, concurring in judgment); BNSF, 581 U. S., at 416 (, concurring in part and dissenting in part). And make no mistake: They are halfway out the door. If States take up the Court’s invitation to manipulate registration, Daimler and Goodyear will be obsolete, and, at least for corporations, specific jurisdiction will be “superfluous.” Daimler, 571 U. S., at 140; see Goodyear, 564 U. S., at 925. Because I would not work this sea change, I respectfully dissent.