Unpacking the Originalist Argument for Maximalist Personal Jurisdiction, Part IV: Picquet v. Swan
This is the fourth in a series of posts questioning the originalist argument for unlimited personal jurisdiction in the federal courts. The prior posts have argued that many of the sources cited by proponents of the theory, including early admiralty cases and twentieth-century cases about the extraterritorial reach of Congress’s prescriptive jurisdiction, do not bear…
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 ReadingPotential Impact of Recent Cartel Designations
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14157, directing the Secretary of State to designate international criminal organizations, including drug cartels, as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). On February 20, 2025,…
Continue ReadingUnpacking the Originalist Argument for Maximalist Personal Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fuld v. PLO declined to address what it called the “maximalist” theory of personal jurisdiction put forward by the petitioners, several amici (including the House of Representatives), and some vocal lower court judges: That as a matter of original understanding, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment places…
Continue ReadingFuld’s Implications for the FSIA (and Other Federal Statutes)
In Fuld v. PLO, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the Fifth Amendment does not impose the same jurisdictional limitations as the Fourteenth.” This means that Congress may authorize federal courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants that state courts may not constitutionally reach. In Fuld, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Promoting Security…
Continue ReadingMedia Roundup: Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization
On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, a case on review from the Second Circuit dealing with the limits of personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Court reversed the Second Circuit unanimously, holding that the personal jurisdiction provisions of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims…
Continue ReadingSupreme Court Decides Fuld v. PLO
The Supreme Court today unanimously reversed the Second Circuit in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, holding that the personal jurisdiction provisions of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) do not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion, which was joined by Justices Alito, Sotomayor,…
Continue ReadingThe Fuld Oral Arguments as Haiku
Justice Roberts: This is all just words! It sounds like a grab bag. Please: Give us a clear test. Justice Thomas: PLO, PA? Are these things “persons” really? And do they have rights? Justice Alito: Why is this unfair? Don’t the defendants have an Office in New York? Justice Sotomayor: We still need…
Continue ReadingOral Argument Recap: Fuld v. PLO
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. The question presented is whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 (PSJVTA) violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by declaring that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have consented to…
Continue Reading