Court Jurisdiction in the United States

An important foundational issue in the law
is the question of jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is about a court's power
to hear a case.

Questions and doctrines
related to jurisdiction

are especially developed
in the United States,

where there are
a host of rules in this respect.

This will therefore be
the focus of this lesson.

There are three basic aspects
to jurisdiction,

or three basic types of jurisdiction.

The first is whether a court
has jurisdiction

over the subject matter of a case.

That is called
subject matter jurisdiction.

The question here is whether a court is
the right court for the type of dispute.

For instance, the U.S. Patent Court
has jurisdiction over patent disputes,

but it has obviously no jurisdiction
over divorce proceedings.

Or a criminal law court
can hear criminal law cases,

but it doesn't have jurisdiction
over civil matters like tort

or contractual disputes.

The second type of jurisdiction
is personal jurisdiction.

In order to be allowed to hear a case,

a court needs to have

both subject matter jurisdiction
and personal jurisdiction.

Personal jurisdiction asks
whether a court has jurisdiction

over a specific person or organization

as the defendant in a case.

Normally, a court in the state
where a defendant resides

has jurisdiction over that person,

but courts in other states don't.

For example,

a court in the state of California
does not necessarily have jurisdiction

over a person who resides in New York.

Generally, the doctrine
of personal jurisdiction

is grounded on two main principles:

Courts should protect defendants
from the burden of facing litigation

in an unlimited number
of possibly remote jurisdictions,

and courts should prevent
states from infringing

on the sovereignty of other states

by limiting the circumstances

under which defendants
can be hauled into court.

One exception to these guiding principles
is the concept of implied consent.

There are various instances
where someone's consent to jurisdiction

in a place other than a person's
residence can be implied.

Among others, examples
of implied consent include:

Driving on the roads of another state.

This may count as implied consent

to be subject
to that state's jurisdiction.

Committing a tort in another state

can also result
in applied jurisdiction in that state.

Furthermore, a non-resident
can be served with a summons

while personally present in a state

and is then subject
to jurisdiction in that state.

But it is also possible
to explicitly consent to jurisdiction.

For instance,
someone who resides in New York

could agree to be sued in California.

If so, then there is explicit consent

to submit to the jurisdiction
of the courts in California.

Businesses can also be subject
to jurisdictions outside the state

where they are headquartered
if they conduct business in other states.

This falls under the minimum contact test,

which has been codified in several states'
so-called long-arm statutes.

Doing business in a state can consist

of maintaining an office,

manufacturing goods,

soliciting business,

providing services, et cetera.

The leading case on business
and minimum contacts

is International Shoe Company
v. State of Washington,

a Supreme Court decision from 1945.

The plaintiff in that case,
the state of Washington,

established a tax on business employers

which consisted
of a mandatory contribution

to a fund for unemployed workers
in the state of Washington.

The defendant, International Shoe Company,

was incorporated in Delaware,

with its principal place
of business in Missouri.

The company did not have
an office in Washington State.

The corporation had maintained
for some time a staff of several salesmen

in the state of Washington,

working on commission.

The salesmen were residents of that state,

and they met with prospective customers
in motels and hotels

and occasionally rented space
to put up displays.

International Shoe Company
did not pay the tax at issue in this case,

so the state tried to enforce collection.

But International Shoe Company
disputed the state's jurisdiction

over it as a corporate person.

The lower courts held that Washington had
personal jurisdiction over the company,

and International Shoe appealed
to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The issue involved a determination

of the level of connection that must exist

between a non-resident corporation
and a state

in order for that corporation
to be sued within that state.

The Supreme Court held
that the activities by its salesmen

on behalf of the corporation

established sufficient contacts

between the state and the corporation

to make it reasonable and just

for the state to enforce
against the corporation

an obligation
arising out of such activities.

The key reasons were
that there had been continuous

and systematic business
operations in the state.

Case law on minimum contacts
is still evolving,

more recently, in particular
in the context of e-commerce.

For instance, some courts have held

that a passive web page is insufficient
to establish personal jurisdiction,

but an interactive website through which
a defendant conducts business

can be enough to establish
personal jurisdiction in the locations

from where the website's users
access the site.

The third and final type of jurisdiction
is in rem jurisdiction.

Rem refers to the Latin term
for thing or property.

In rem jurisdiction asks
whether a court has the power

to decide cases
concerning a specific property.

For example, a court in New York
may not have the power

to decide cases involving a house

that is located in California.

Conversely, the California court
will likely have in rem jurisdiction

over that property, based on its location.

Let's try and apply
these principles to an example.

Let's say that a tenant
rents an apartment in New York

from a landlord
who resides in Connecticut.

The tenant has a slip and fall
in his apartment

due to a puddle of water in the lobby
and breaks his leg.

Where can the tenant sue the landlord?

There are actually a few options here.

The tenant may sue in Connecticut
because the landlord resides there.

That's personal jurisdiction.

The tenant may also sue in New York

because the landlord
is doing business there

by renting out the apartment.

That's long-arm jurisdiction
under the minimum contacts test

established
in the International Shoe case.

The tenant could also sue in New York
because the apartment is located there,

and the dispute arises
out of this property.

That's in rem jurisdiction.

Finally, the tenant
may also sue in New York

because the landlord
may have committed a tort there,

which establishes implied consent.