Personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants in state courts is limited by state statutes and by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to require that defendants have “minimum contacts” with the forum state. Personal jurisdiction in federal courts extends in most cases only as far as the jurisdiction of the state courts of the state in which they sit. However, in limited situations governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) and some federal statutes, personal jurisdiction in federal courts can extend beyond the limits of state court jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction in federal courts is limited by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The analysis of personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment is more flexible than the "minimum contacts" analysis under the Fourteenth Amendment.
A Primer on Personal Jurisdiction
(Updated August 19, 2025) Personal jurisdiction (or “authority to adjudicate”) refers to the authority of a court to make a binding determination with respect to a person or a thing. In personam jurisdiction refers to the authority to determine the rights or obligations of a person (including a business). In rem jurisdiction refers to the…
Continue ReadingSuing Cuban Instrumentalities Under the Helms-Burton Act
Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), the agencies and instrumentalities of foreign states are generally immune from suit in U.S. courts unless one of the FSIA’s exceptions applies. But this past June, in Exxon Mobil Corp v. Corporación CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), the Supreme Court held that the Helms-Burton Act abrogates the sovereign immunity of Cuban agencies and…
Continue ReadingDue Process and in rem Jurisdiction
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held in United States v. Nasri that Fifth Amendment due process is violated if a federal court exercises in rem jurisdiction but lacks custody or constructive control over the property. The district court, Judge Hayes (S.D. Cal.), had held to the contrary, and Judge Bennett dissented from the panel…
Continue ReadingRecognizing Foreign Judgments: Of Personal Jurisdiction, Collateral Estoppel, and Judicial Discretion
In the United States, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is generally governed by state law. State law is largely uniform throughout the United States because most states have adopted one of two Uniform Acts. The acts raise fascinating questions of interpretation, and Judge Margaret M. Garnett (Southern District of New York) faced several…
Continue Reading