U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies In-State Connections Required for Specific Personal Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court disagreed in an 8–0 decision (Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate) and affirmed the lower courts. The Court held that the standard “arises out of or relates to” permits the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction without a strict causal relationship in certain circumstances. Specifically, in Ford’s case, the Court held that “When a company like Ford serves a market for a product in a State and that product causes injury in the State to one of its residents, the State’s courts may entertain the resulting suit.” Nonetheless, the Court stressed that this ruling “does not mean anything goes. In the sphere of specific jurisdiction, the phrase ‘relate to’ incorporates real limits, as it must to adequately protect defendants foreign to a forum.”

The Court contrasted its decision with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, a 2017 decision finding no personal jurisdiction in a California suit against a pharmaceutical manufacturer brought by “forum-shopping” patients who were not residents of or injured in California. The Court stressed that the Ford plaintiffs “brought suit in the most natural State” because they “are residents of the forum States. They used the allegedly defective products in the forum States. And they suffered injuries when those products malfunctioned in the forum States.” The Court also distinguished this case from a 1980 decision, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, which held that an automobile dealer could not be sued by a customer who bought a vehicle, drove to another state, and suffered an accident in that state. Unlike that automobile dealer, Ford has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in all 50 states and so could be subjected to jurisdiction in states whose citizens are involved in accidents using Ford vehicles there.

Three justices concurred in the judgment. Justice Samuel Alito would not have decided whether a causal relationship is required for specific personal jurisdiction and instead would have resolved the case on the ground that a causal relationship was adequately demonstrated, in that plaintiffs would not have bought used Ford vehicles in the forum states but for Ford’s heavy presence marketing and selling vehicles and parts in those states. Justice Alito further suggested that the Court’s personal jurisdiction jurisprudence is not “well suited for the way in which business is now conducted.” Justice Neil Gorsuch (joined by Justice Clarence Thomas) suggested that the personal jurisdiction framework dating back to International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) should be reexamined and is inconsistent with the original meaning of the Constitution. The two-Justice concurrence, observing what it viewed as “special jurisdictional protections in the name of the Constitution” for corporations, appears to suggest a return to a “presence” test, in which personal jurisdiction turns on the defendant’s physical presence in the forum state.

It is unclear how the Ford decision will apply outside of the context of automobile accidents. However, the decision suggests that the Court will give significant weight to the location of the injury and plaintiff’s residence, at least in cases in which the defendant also has significant operations in the forum state. Conversely, the decision reaffirms that “forum-shopping” plaintiffs who reside and were injured outside the forum state cannot support personal jurisdiction based on a defendant’s general operations in the forum state.

* Sidley attorneys Virginia Seitz, Jonathan Cohn, Erika Maley, Alan Rothman, and Daniel Hay represented Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America as amicus curiae in support of Ford in these cases.