Personal jurisdiction is a core constitutional concept that allows people and companies alike to know when and where they can be brought into court and held accountable for their actions. Over the past 25 years, the law of personal jurisdiction has undergone a dramatic transformation, and courts have narrowed the circumstances under which corporations can be sued outside of their “home” states (i.e., their state of incorporation or the state in which they have their corporate headquarters). Generally speaking, this has greatly benefited corporate defendants at the expense of the injured individuals MSB Employment Justice represents.
Amid this narrowing trend, however, a traditional legal doctrine has quietly reemerged, with MSB leading the charge: consent jurisdiction, which establishes that, as a condition of being allowed to do business in a particular state, that state can require a corporation to consent to the jurisdiction of its courts. Minnesota has enacted such a consent statute.
An In-Depth Look at Lynn v. BNSF Railway Company
Consent jurisdiction was at the center of Lynn v. BNSF Railway Company, a case in which MSB Founding Partner Chris Moreland, along with Paula Jossart (Jossart Law Office), represents Tanner Lynn, a railroad conductor who lives in Iowa and suffered career-ending injuries while working for the BNSF Railway Company in South Dakota. Relying on Minnesota’s consent statute, Lynn filed his lawsuit in Hennepin County, Minnesota, where BNSF does a substantial amount of business.
The BNSF filed a motion to dismiss Lynn’s case in the trial court, arguing that its exercise of personal jurisdiction violated two constitutional protections: (1) the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment; and (2) the dormant Commerce Clause, which is a constitutional principle inferred from Article 1, section 8 (aka the Commerce Clause). MSB disagreed, explaining that the Minnesota courts’ exercise of personal jurisdiction over the BNSF did neither of those things, and it was directly in line with Congressional intent and over 100 years of binding United Supreme Court precedent.
Exploring the Court of Appeals’ Decision
The district court agreed with MSB and denied BNSF’s motion to dismiss Lynn’s case. The BNSF filed an appeal with the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which also agreed with MSB and affirmed the district court’s order. You can find the Court of Appeals’ decision here.
After the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected its petition for further review, the BNSF filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The BNSF’s petition was written by Lisa Blatt, who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court (57) than any other woman in history, and it was supported by amicus briefs from several powerful railroad lobbying groups (including the Association of American Railroads, the Washington Legal Foundation, and the Atlantic Legal Foundation).
On May 4, 2026, in a major victory for railroad workers across the nation, the Supreme Court denied the BNSF’s petition and ended the case, thereby confirming the continuing viability of consent jurisdiction, effectively affirming the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ decision in favor of Mr. Lynn, and allowing him to proceed with his injury claims in Minnesota.
Partner with MSB Employment Justice
As always, regardless of the size, strength, influence, or resources of any corporate employer, MSB Employment Justice stands with workers and is ready to fight for their cause to the highest court in the land. Our employment law attorneys are ready to help you navigate your workplace dispute. Contact MSB Employment Justice today to speak with our legal team.
