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 may extend beyond the limits of state court jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction in federal courts is limited by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the scope of which remains unclear. Whether customary international imposes general limits jurisdiction on jurisdiction to adjudicate is also unclear.
A Primer on Personal Jurisdiction
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 authority to determine ownership…
Continue ReadingRecent Developments in Helms-Burton Litigation
It is a busy time in the Helms-Burton world. With a $29.8 million jury award in Florida, major developments in the law of personal jurisdiction, several notable court of appeals decisions, and two recent CVSGs, there is a lot going on. That stands to reason. It was 2019 when the first Trump administration lifted the…
Continue ReadingUnpacking the Originalist Argument for Maximalist Personal Jurisdiction, Part III: Admiralty Jurisdiction
This is the third in a series of posts questioning the originalist argument for maximalist personal jurisdiction. The crux of the originalist argument is that early federal decisions discussed limits on personal jurisdiction in terms of international law (not constitutional constraints) and that Congress could override international law. Thus, the theory goes, Congress as an…
Continue ReadingUnpacking the Originalist Argument for Maximalist Personal Jurisdiction, Part II: The Logic of Syllogisms
This is the second post in a series questioning the originalist argument for maximalist personal jurisdiction, as embraced by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch in their Fuld v. PLO concurrence. Pivotal to the originalist theory of maximalist personal jurisdiction is the argument that limits on adjudicative power were initially understood not as due process limits (or…
Continue Reading