Article by Janice Toran
The notion that each state is a sovereign entity forms the basis of the Supreme Court's current approach to personal jurisdiction. The preservation of the sovereign interests of the states may be seen as a value protected by the “minimum contacts” test and hence as either an element of or an end to be achieved by due process.
The Supreme Court's major decisions concerning personal jurisdiction involve suits against domestic defendants. It is in this context that the emphasis on state sovereignty in discussions of personal jurisdiction has developed. The first part of this article provides a brief look at the role of federalism and state sovereignty concerns in the shaping of personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. The second part of the article suggests that cases against aliens do not trigger state sovereignty concerns in the same manner as do cases against domestic defendants. This part of the article then examines the ways in which courts have responded to the unique jurisdictional problems arising in suits against aliens. It focuses, first, on decisions that use a national contacts approach to jurisdiction and, second, on decisions that attempt to apply the state sovereignty principles of jurisdiction announced by the Supreme Court in 1980. In the last section, the article concludes that, pending revision of the Supreme Court's approach or congressional action, it is possible to interpret current personal jurisdiction cases to provide a workable basis for the assertion of jurisdiction over aliens.
About the Author
Janice Toran. Associate Professor, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University; B.A. 1969, Smith College; J.D. 1974, Northeastern University School of Law.
Citation
58 Tul. L. Rev. 758 (1984)