•  
  •  
 

The Judges' Book

Abstract

Since Pennoyer v. Neff, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause has constrained the exercise of personal jurisdiction by state courts. The Fourteenth Amendment permits state courts to exercise personal jurisdiction in four circumstances: (1) consent, (2) in-state service on an individual, (3) residency or citizenship in the state, and (4) minimum contacts with the state such that personal jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Confining state-court personal jurisdiction to connections between the litigant and the forum state serves not only litigant interests of fairness and reasonableness but also federal interests of interstate harmony.

In federal court, personal jurisdiction involves different laws. Rule 4(k) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that service of a summons establishes a federal court’s personal jurisdiction in several different circumstances.

Overarching the Rule 4(k) authorizations is the Constitution, which imposes independent limits on federal power. The Fourteenth Amendment restricts only states, but the Fifth Amendment, which also has a Due Process Clause, applies to the federal government. Personal jurisdiction otherwise proper under Rule 4(k) must still comport with the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Until 2025, the Supreme Court repeatedly refused to decide what constraints the Fifth Amendment imposes.

Download

Share

COinS