Joshua Logsdon is a 2019 Judge K.K. Legett Fellow at Washington Legal Foundation who will be entering his third year at Texas Tech University School of Law in the fall.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, the plaintiffs’ bar has been testing general-jurisdiction theories that allow courts to navigate around the justices’ 8-1 ruling. Some lawyers have tried to invoke States’ business-registration statutes—with mixed results. They have found the most success in Pennsylvania, thanks to a broadly worded business-registration statute and state-court precedents that equate business registration with consent to general jurisdiction.

One federal court outside of Pennsylvania recently embraced the consent-by-registration argument. In Schmidt v. Navistar, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico held that Navistar, an out-of-state corporation, could be sued in New Mexico. Though New Mexico’s business registration statute is not as explicit as Pennsylvania’s, the New Mexico Supreme Court in Werner v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. held in 1993 that by merely registering to do business in the state, out-of-state corporations consented to general jurisdiction under New Mexico Business Corporation Act, § 53-17-11. The district court reasoned that the New Mexico Supreme Court’s decision in Werner was enough to find that first, Navistar consented to general jurisdiction in New Mexico and second, New Mexico’s forced-consent requirement is constitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1917 decision in Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Min. & Mill. Co.