It wasn't by much, but the Supreme Court did it.

They upheld the law 5-4.

The law in questions was a very unique rule "that requires companies to face litigants in its state courts when they register to do business in the state."

Pennsylvania appears to be the only state with this type of law.

America's Supreme Court "vacated the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and remanded the case to that court, directing it to take a second look at a lawsuit a former Norfolk Southern Railway Co. employee brought against the company in a state where it isn’t based," according to the Epoch Times.

The case was focused around Robert Mallory, a man who worked for Norfolk Southern as a freight car mechanic for nearly 20 years. First he worked with them in Ohio, then Virginia.

He was responsible for spraying boxcar pipes with asbestos and handling various chemicals in the railroad's paint shop, he claimed.

Mr. Mallory also said that he demolished car interiors that contained carcinogens.

After Robert Mallory left the company, he moved to Pennsylvania for a time before he returned to Virginia. During that time, he was given a cancer diagnosis, which he blamed his company for.

He hired lawyers to sue "his former employer in Pennsylvania state court under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. The statute created a workers’ compensation system allowing railroad employees to recover damages for employers’ negligence."

Norfolk Southern resisted the lawsuit on constitutional grounds, saying that Mr. Mallory lived in Virginia by the time he filed his complaint.

At the end of the Supreme Court hearing the case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that "the due process clause isn’t violated 'when a large out-of-state corporation with substantial operations in a State complies with a registration requirement that conditions the right to do business in that State on the registrant’s submission to personal jurisdiction in any suits that are brought there.'"

"Assuming that the Constitution allows a State to impose such a registration requirement, I see no reason to conclude that such suits violate the corporation’s right to ‘fair play and substantial justice,’" he wrote.

What do you think of this case?

Let us know in the comments below.