Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Even if a nonresident defendant has minimum contacts with the forum, the Supreme Court has, at times, considered whether a state court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over him would comport with due process by examining the reasonableness of the exercise of jurisdiction.1 In International Shoe and its subsequent opinions, the Court has established a multi-factor test that seeks to ensure that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” 2 The Court has subsequently clarified that in applying this test to evaluate the reasonableness of the exercise of jurisdiction in light of the defendant’s contacts with the forum and litigation, it will examine several factors, including: (1) “the burden on the defendant” ; (2) “the forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute” ; (3) “the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief” ; (4) “the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies” ; (5) and the “shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.” 3

Although the Supreme Court has addressed the reasonableness prong of the International Shoe test for personal jurisdiction only in Asahi and Daimler, it has provided some guidance as to when courts may deem it reasonable to subject a defendant to suit. Thus, the Justices have, for example, suggested that courts should remain cautious about exercising personal jurisdiction over corporations domiciled abroad, particularly when most of the conduct at issue occurred overseas.4 Courts may therefore evaluate the risks that subjecting a foreign corporation to suit in the United States for overseas conduct would have on international relations between the United States and its trading partners.5 In a case involving the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation, moreover, the policies of other nations are relevant and must be carefully considered.6

In addition, when considering the burden on the defendant of litigating the case in the forum state, the Court may consider it a heavy burden for a company domiciled abroad to travel from its foreign headquarters to have a dispute with another foreign corporation litigated in U.S. courts.7 This concern may stem in part from the notion that the interests of the plaintiff and forum are minimal when the claim is based on overseas transactions, the plaintiff is not a resident of the United States, and the allegedly tortious conduct could be deterred by subjecting companies over which the court has lawful judicial power to suit.8

Footnotes

1

Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 113 (1987) ( “We have previously explained that the determination of the reasonableness of the exercise of jurisdiction in each case will depend on an evaluation of several factors.” ).

2

Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

3

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985) (citation omitted).

4

Asahi, 480 U.S. at 114.

5

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 142 (2014) ( “Considerations of international rapport thus reinforce our determination that subjecting Daimler to the general jurisdiction of courts in California would not accord with the ‘fair play and substantial justice’ due process demands.” ).

6

Asahi, 480 U.S. at 115–16.

7

Id. at 114.

8

Id. at 114–15 (noting that the lawsuit involved an indemnification claim brought by a Taiwanese tire manufacturer against a Japanese valve assembly manufacturer).