Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is the constitutional requirement that a court have authority over the specific defendant before it can render a valid judgment. Without personal jurisdiction, a judgment is void and unenforceable. The doctrine is rooted in the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The modern framework begins with International Shoe v. Washington (1945), which replaced the rigid territorial approach of Pennoyer v. Neff with a flexible "minimum contacts" analysis. Under International Shoe, a state may exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who has "minimum contacts" with the forum state such that maintaining the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

Two types of personal jurisdiction exist. Specific jurisdiction applies when the lawsuit arises out of or relates to the defendant's contacts with the forum state. Courts analyze: (1) whether the defendant purposefully availed themselves of the forum, (2) whether the claim arises from those contacts, and (3) whether the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. General jurisdiction allows a court to hear any claim against a defendant who is "at home" in the forum — for individuals, their domicile; for corporations, their state of incorporation and principal place of business (Daimler AG v. Bauman).

World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson established that the unilateral activity of the plaintiff cannot create jurisdiction — the defendant must purposefully direct conduct toward the forum. Burger King v. Rudzewicz clarified that physical presence is not required; deliberate affiliation with a state (like a franchise agreement) suffices.