Article by Michael H. Hoffheimer
In six cases, the Roberts Court's fundamentally reshaped constitutional doctrine governing the personal jurisdiction of state and federal courts. The cases cut back on the power of courts to decide disputes and restrict plaintiffs' access to justice.
Two scholars have gone still further. They attack the minimum contacts standard of International Shoe (1945) and call for a return to what they see as the traditional territorial vision of personal jurisdiction in Pennoyer v. Neff (1878).
This Article argues against neo-territorialism. First, it argues that territorialism endorsed outrageous and unacceptable results. This is especially clear in quasi in rem jurisdiction cases, which the proponents of neo-territorialism ignore.
Second, this Article challenges the claim that Pennoyer generalized universally accepted legal principles at the time it was written. On the contrary, this Article shows that Pennoyer itself overruled precedent and, as a dissenting justice recognized, lacked constitutional authority.
Third, this Article offers a strong defense of International Shoe's territorial skepticism by considering that case in a broader historical context. The context makes clear that the Court's reform of jurisdictional limits was part of a revisioning of territorial limits on state regulatory authority that was occurring in areas as diverse as ex parte divorce decrees and workers compensation awards.
About the Authors
Michael H. Hoffheimer, Professor of Law and Jamie L. Whitten Chair of Law and Government emeritus, University of Mississippi School of Law. B.A., The Johns Hopkins University; Ph.D., University of Chicago; J.D. University of Michigan.
Citation
95 Tul. L. Rev. 1305 (2021)