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 ReadingIs the Closely Related Doctrine a Creature of State or Federal Law?
The closely related doctrine, discussed here and here and here, posits that a non-signatory to a contract may be bound by a forum selection clause in that contract if the non-signatory is so “closely related” to a signatory that it was “foreseeable” that it would be bound. Robin Effron and I have argued that using…
Continue ReadingDifferential Targeting of the Forum in Jurisdictional Analysis
The doctrine of “effects” jurisdiction permits a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant when the defendant’s activity outside the forum causes harm within it. It is frequently used in e-commerce cases in which a defendant’s website is accessed by consumers nationwide (or indeed globally). One of the elements necessary to establish jurisdiction…
Continue ReadingWashington Supreme Court Requires In-State Property for Recognition of Foreign Judgments
To recognize and enforce a judgment rendered in another jurisdiction, a U.S. court need not have in personam jurisdiction over the judgment debtor. The U.S. Supreme Court observed in Shaffer v. Heitner (1977): Once it has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction that the defendant is a debtor of the plaintiff, there would…
Continue Reading