{
  "id": "R44957",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44957",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 585969,
      "date": "2017-09-14",
      "retrieved": "2018-10-04T14:14:04.621900",
      "title": "Due Process Limits on the Jurisdiction of Courts: Issues for Congress",
      "summary": "Businesses that are incorporated in foreign countries and conduct a large portion of their operations outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States may nevertheless cause injury to U.S. persons. For example, a foreign company might manufacture in its home country a machine that another company later distributes in the United States, ultimately resulting in an injury to a U.S. consumer. Although foreign companies may engage in actions or omissions that injure U.S. persons, such injured persons may face various procedural challenges in obtaining judicial relief from a foreign company defendant in U.S. courts.\nOne potential obstacle to such civil lawsuits is the doctrine of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to limit the power of state courts to render judgments affecting the personal rights of defendants who do not reside within the state\u2019s territory. And the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure give federal district courts power to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant to the same extent that a state court in which the federal district court is located may assert that power, meaning the same limits on personal jurisdiction generally apply to federal courts. The Court has offered several justifications for the constitutional constraints on a court\u2019s assertion of personal jurisdiction over nonresident persons and corporations, including concerns about state sovereignty and fairness to defendants.\nThe Supreme Court\u2019s jurisprudence addressing the doctrine of personal jurisdiction spans a period of American history that has witnessed a significant expansion of interstate and global commerce, as well as major technological advancements in transportation and communication. These changes produced a fundamental shift in the Court\u2019s views concerning the doctrine. Although the Court initially considered the defendant\u2019s physical presence within the forum state to be the touchstone of the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him or her, it later rejected strict adherence to this rule in favor of a more flexible standard that examines a nonresident defendant\u2019s contacts with the forum state to determine whether those contacts make it reasonable to require him to respond to a lawsuit there. The Supreme Court\u2019s opinions in International Shoe Co. v. Washington and subsequent cases have established a more flexible two-part test for determining when exercise of personal jurisdiction over each nonresident defendant sued by a plaintiff comports with due process: (1) the defendant must establish minimum contacts with the forum state that demonstrate an intent to avail itself of the benefits and protections of state law; and (2) it must be reasonable to require the defendant to defend the lawsuit in the forum.\nRecent Supreme Court rulings have limited the circumstances in which U.S. courts may exercise personal jurisdiction. This report discusses the evolution of the doctrine of personal jurisdiction as elucidated by the Supreme Court in its opinions. It concludes by examining the implications of recent developments in the doctrine of personal jurisdiction for Congress, as well as options that Congress might have to address these developments.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44957",
          "sha1": "3771d7bba1c329af186eba8f9a2fb3664843acab",
          "filename": "files/20170914_R44957_3771d7bba1c329af186eba8f9a2fb3664843acab.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44957",
          "sha1": "31580c8bdd826c4b48e9974726b69afe3ad059c6",
          "filename": "files/20170914_R44957_31580c8bdd826c4b48e9974726b69afe3ad059c6.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4846,
          "name": "Civil Rights & Liberties"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}