The petitioners in International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson (25-840) are children’s rights organizations and parents. They are challenging Washington State laws that deprive parents of their natural and legal rights when their child runs away from home to seek “gender-affirming care”—a euphemism that includes gender-transition “treatments” such as hormone injections, double mastectomies, and genital

Toles v. Mead Johnson & Co. is one of thousands of product liability suits involving lifesaving nutritional products that the nation’s neonatal intensive care units rely upon to care for preterm infants. The core allegation in these suits—despite federal agencies’ scientific and medical consensus to the contrary—is that the nutritional products at issue cause necrotizing

In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court held in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023), that a Pennsylvania statute explicitly providing notice that registering to do business in that state represents consent to the state’s general “all purpose” jurisdiction does not violate due process. Mallory, however, left unanswered important constitutional

More than 60 state and local governments have filed state-law tort suits in state courts around the United States collectively seeking billions of dollars in damages and other relief from major oil and natural gas producers for the alleged local effects of global climate change. Preclusion of these proliferating climate-change tort suits is crucial not

Under Pennsylvania and Minnesota laws, companies that register to do business in those states are deemed to have consented to the state’s general (“all purpose”) jurisdiction. This means that an out-of-state corporation can be sued by an out-of-state plaintiff for a cause of action that has no connection to Pennsylvania or Minnesota. All states have