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 ReadingExtraterritorial Application of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998 to criminalize the circumvention of access controls to copyrighted works. Section 1201 provides: “No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.” Section 1203 allows a person injured by a violation of that provision to sue…
Continue ReadingPersonal Jurisdiction in Federal Antitrust Litigation Post-Fuld: In re Diisocyanates Litigation
Last year, in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, the Supreme Court held that the due process limits of personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment differ from those under the Fourteenth. As Maggie Gardner has noted, the Court didn’t say much about what those limits might be—meaning that the lower federal courts will now take on…
Continue ReadingEnforcement of Arbitral Awards against Russia for Expropriation of Property in Crimea
The D.C. Circuit recently cleared the way for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards against Russia for the expropriation of electricity and gas infrastructure in Crimea. Russia argued in the case, Stabil v. Russian Federation, that there was no jurisdiction because the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) did not apply and…
Continue Reading