Personal Jurisdiction

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.

Recent Posts

Fuld and Waldman Plaintiffs Seek Supreme Court Review

TLB has followed the Second Circuit’s decisions holding unconstitutional the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 (PSJVTA) and denying an en banc rehearing in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Organization over a strong dissent by Judge Steven Menashi. As predicted, the plaintiffs recently filed a…

Continue Reading

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 Reading

Second Circuit Denies Rehearing En Banc in Fuld v. PLO

Last week, the Second Circuit denied rehearing en banc in Fuld v. Palestinian Liberation Organization, an important personal jurisdiction decision that TLB has previously covered here, here, and here. The denial prompted a dissent by Judge Steven Menashi, joined in whole or in part by three other judges, which in turn prompted a concurrence by…

Continue Reading