9.27.24 - Personal Jurisdiction pt. 1
//I wrote elements of this while taking the course, but have gotten it together into a lecture format to help me tutor Civ Pro. I thought I would share it here because I like it . . .//
Personal Jurisdiction: A Big Picture Overview
Let’s take a big step back. Now to be clear, this isn’t stuff that you necessarily need on the exam, but I feel like context is helpful when you’re spending so much time in the weeds of doctrine. It’s good to take a moment to appreciate the big picture, because sometimes it makes everything clearer.
So, What’s going on here exactly? What’s the problem in all of these cases? What are you being taught? What is the central issue that this whole body of law deals with?
Let’s take a step back to see the forest through the trees.
Okay, so this is all about jurisdiction, right? Specifically, right now, we’re talking about the jurisdiction of American states.
What is jurisdiction? It’s the power to adjudicate a dispute. Where do states get that power? Well think about the country before the Constitution for a moment. States are like countries. Where does any country get its power to adjudicate disputes between citizens?
It’s sort of presumed, right? Yes, we have the whole concept of Constitutions now. But really, jurisdiction is really tied with sovereignty, which in turn is a result of the monopoly on violence. States just have jurisdiction as a default. That’s the whole point of government. So to conclude on this point, states traditionally have an automatic, latent jurisdiction over their citizens. Very similar to their general “police powers,” which predate the Constitution.
Now lets think about the Union, and how things can become a little more complex and formal after the Constitution. So after the Constitution, you have a federal government, made up of states. Since that federal government is created by sovereign entities, its power, and its jurisdiction, are more enumerated, not latent, at least in theory.
(So we’re going to quickly take an aside and skip ahead to topics outside of personal jurisdiction, specifically subject matter jurisdiction but I think it will be helpful to see the forest through the trees).
The Federal Government, and its Courts, draw its jurisdiction exclusively from the Constitution (or maybe its nature as a sovereign on the world stage, with respect to jurisdiction over foreign affairs matters, but that’s not important here). Specifically, Federal jurisdiction is rooted in Article III. Article III defines classes of Cases and Controversies which have cognizance by Federal Courts. This is the subject matter over which the Federal Courts have jurisdiction——their subject matter jurisdiction.
Federal Subject Matter jurisdiction has two main categories:
* diversity
* Federal questions (arising under laws of the U.S. or the Constitution)
But what’s the subject matter jurisdiction of state courts? It’s whatever they want it to be, theoretically (certainly before the Constitution). State courts have what’s called a general jurisdiction, (don't worry about how this stands in contrast to specific jurisdiction just yet, we'll get there, and also realize why the distinction is problematic. the hard general-specific dichtomy is a somewhat newer concept in the doctrine so it makes sense to get to it later) whereas the federal court has limited jurisdiction.
Okay, so at base, we have state courts, who have a general power to hear disputes that happen in their jurisdiction, or general jurisdiction, and we have the federal courts, with limited subject matter jurisdiction.
Now, where does personal jurisdiction fit into all of this?
First, think about a hypothetical world where there are only people, no companies (which make things a bit hard), and people never leave their state. In that world, we have all the jurisdictional categories we need already. For most controversies, the state you live in will adjudicate your dispute. If you get into a dispute somehow with someone in another state, or under a federal law, you will go to federal court.
But even in the early United States, people moved around a bit between states. And the framers anticipated that could cause problems. Remember, at this point it was these United States, and being a citizen of a state was a little more like being a citizen of a country, so that if a Virginian went to Florida, we could imagine him being treated like an alien. Countries often preference citizens over non-citizens in all sorts of ways. The framers didn’t want that kind of situation, they didn’t want Americans to be treated like aliens when they were in different states. They wanted a Union, and they wanted to create a common national market. They wanted some rights to move with American citizens.
The first answer was the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution.
“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
We don’t have to get into it, but basically, the framers thought that this language would prevent states from denying non-citizens basic rights around property, movement, legal remedies under their laws, etc. I’m sure there’s some cases about how privileges and immunities protected non residents back in the day, but it doesn’t matter for us. It was a long time ago, and it doesn’t serve a giant function in the world of personal jurisdiction.
The point is, that was the only real constitutional protection nonresidents had if they felt a state’s administration of law treated them unequally or unfairly. It suggests some basic protections and equal footing with the citizens of the state——but it doesn’t seem to contain a real standard for fairness. So this isn’t a world where we have cases that matter for us, cases where the Supreme Court were figuring out what personal rights nonresidents have as far as being subject to jurisdiction.
So that’s the world, pre-Civil War. You have states with general jurisdiction, some very vague protections for non-residents in the Constitution, and a federal government with limited subject matter jurisdiction. There’s a reason your cases start after the Civil War, with Pennoyer. —-
Jurisdictional doctrine significantly change after the Civil War. That’s because we pass the Fourteenth Amendment, for all sorts of reasons. Now, for purposes of jurisdiction, this changes things mainly because now there is a constitutional requirement that:
“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
And note that, since there is now a constitutional provision that bears on the exercise of state jurisdiction, a federal court now has a basis to review jurisdictional determinations of states——they can see whether the exercise of jurisdiction comported with “due process.” Basically, now there’s a federal subject matter jurisdiction to review how state’s exercise their general jurisdiction.
***To restate that point, the federal government has subject matter jurisdiction over how states exercise their supposedly general jurisdiction, by seeing if it comports with the Due Process Rights enjoyed by all Americans***
So now, we have a real limit on how states can exercise their general jurisdiction, but what are those limits?
Now, take a step back and think about what the Constitution governs. And what the Fourteenth Amendment protects. They govern and protect the rights of individuals, as American citizens, against states. After the Fourteenth Amendment, which also incorporates other Constitutional protections (which previously were thought to only apply to federal action) against states, it is even more clear that there are rights that people enjoy that protect them from certain state action. This is the context in which something like personal jurisdiction becomes important.
When we’re asking whether a state court has personal jurisdiction over an individual (or entity), we are asking whether it had the power to adjudicate a dispute involving them, and to impose a judgement on them, in light of the protections they enjoy as an American citizen——specifically, the Constitutional right of due process under law.
***The way I think about it is this: the doctrine of personal jurisdiction is created by the Federal Government’s cognizance of Americans’ due process rights as against foreign state governments. It’s really a doctrine about due process, with respect to non-residents***
Why is personal jurisdiction so important? Lack of Personal jurisdiction (or any jurisdiction) is one of the few bases for a collateral attack, or a voiding of a final judgement against a party after the fact. That’s because when we say that a state didn’t have personal jurisdiction, we’re saying it never had the power to make that judgement in the first place. So it's great for defendants who want to contest a state judgement against them.
So the primary argument against states' exercise of personal jurisdiction on a nonresident, has been the due process protections in the Constitution. That's really what's going on in the Civ Pro cases. Now really, this isn’t necessarily the only potential limit on state jurisdiction over non-residents. For instance, some academics suggest that the Dormant Commerce Clause could serve as a reservoir of restraints on state courts. This is because the fedearl Congres has plenary authority over interstate commerce, which may suggest that state courts can't adjudicate disputes or impose judgements on national companies that amount to them regulating interstate commerce——a jurisdictional limit! But for historical reasons and inertia, basically all of the personal jurisdiction doctrine is about the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
That’s right, territorial jurisdiction, tag jurisdiction, minimum contacts, purposeful availment, reasonable anticipation, stream of commerce, targeting——all this doctrine is really packed into what Due Process means. It’s all about what Due Process really protects. When you’re asking if something satisfied Due Process, you’re asking, what process is Due or “owed” to people, which is really another way to ask about what’s “fair.” It's good to remember this and to tie all the doctrine back to basic intuitions about fairness. —-
Due Process has two basic components: procedural due process, and substantive due process. Procedural due process is relatively straightforward, did the Court give notice and all that, were the traditional formalities followed. Substantive due process is more amorphous, and it basically reflects the intuition that you need something more to be fair. It has been said to protect “unenumerated” rights. It’s very squishy. Which is why personal jurisdiction is hard. It’s basically all about fairness.
What you see in the cases is really just an evolution of what courts think is fair, and them innovating the standards of Due Process to deal with new situations, like companies that do business in multiple states in a more interconnected economy (that’s really the bulk of the problem, in most of your cases).
Okay, with that, I think we have enough of an overview to get to the cases. //look out for pt. 2, if I upload it, ever// —-