The PA Chamber recently filed amicus briefs in two cases before Pennsylvania courts, weighing in on issues that could affect how businesses interact with state agencies and where lawsuits involving out-of-state companies are heard.

The briefs are part of the PA Chamber’s broader advocacy work, which extends beyond the state legislature to the executive and judicial branches. Through amicus, or “friend of the court,” briefs, the PA Chamber provides courts with its perspective on cases that could affect Pennsylvania’s business climate and economic competitiveness.

In Goldata Computer Services Inc. v. Department of Banking and Securities, the PA Chamber joined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in urging the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to recognize a state constitutional right to a jury trial in state agency enforcement actions.

The brief argues that claims involving securities fraud and deceit have historically been tried before juries and that civil monetary penalties also require a jury trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a federal constitutional right to a jury trial in certain cases involving such penalties.

The case could have implications for how Pennsylvania agencies pursue enforcement actions against businesses.

In a separate case, Syngenta Crop Protection v. Black, the PA Chamber joined a coalition in urging the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse a trial court decision and dismiss out-of-state plaintiffs’ mass tort claims under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The doctrine allows a court to dismiss or transfer a case when another jurisdiction would be a more appropriate and convenient forum for the litigation.

The issue has taken on greater significance following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., which held that Pennsylvania’s consent-by-registration statute can provide Pennsylvania courts with personal jurisdiction over out-of-state corporations based on their registration to do business in the Commonwealth, including in certain cases involving conduct that occurred outside Pennsylvania.

In Syngenta, more than 1,000 plaintiffs have filed claims in Pennsylvania’s Mass Tort Program, with more than 91 percent identifying no connection between their claims and Pennsylvania, according to the coalition’s brief.

Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC is a Delaware company with its principal place of business in North Carolina. The brief argues that its registration to do business in Pennsylvania should not, by itself, make Pennsylvania the appropriate forum for claims brought by out-of-state plaintiffs involving out-of-state conduct.

Both cases illustrate how judicial decisions can shape Pennsylvania’s business environment and the legal obligations facing employers.

Rules governing agency enforcement and where businesses can be sued help shape the legal environment companies face when operating in the Commonwealth, and the PA Chamber will continue to weigh in on cases where those decisions could affect Pennsylvania’s competitiveness and the broader business climate.