National Personal Jurisdiction (In Personam) in Federal Court
This page includes a writing template for analyzing this topic and usage notes to guide its application. In general, the template is designed to serve as a starting point for your analysis. It should be adapted to fit the specific facts of your case and your professor’s preferences.
On this page:
Writing Template
Issue
I: The issue is whether the federal court has personal jurisdiction authorized by federal statute over Defendant.
Analysis
R: Federal courts do not have inherent national personal jurisdiction. However, Congress can authorize federal courts to exercise national personal jurisdiction in specific contexts by enacting statutes that expressly provide for such jurisdiction.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, the federal statute [does/does not] authorize national service of process (national jurisdiction).
Due Process
R: Even with statutory authorization for national personal jurisdiction, the exercise of such jurisdiction must comply with constitutional due process. Due process requirements are satisfied if the non-resident defendant has sufficient (1) minimum contacts with the United States, and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
1. Minimum Contacts
R: A defendant’s contacts with the United States must be (1) purposeful and substantial, such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate or foresee being taken to court there, which is established (a) when the cause of action arises out of or closely relates to the defendant’s contact with the United States, even if the contact is the defendant’s only contact with the United States (Specific Jurisdiction) or (b) where the defendant’s contacts are continuous and systematic, even if the cause of action does not arise out of or closely relate to the defendant’s contact with the United States (General Jurisdiction).
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, Defendant’s [has/does not have] sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state.
2. Fair Play and Substantial Justice
R: If minimum contacts are established, the court must confirm that exercising jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Relevant considerations include (1) the forum state’s interest, (2) the defendant’s burden in appearing, (3) judicial efficiency, and (4) shared interests of the states in promoting common social policies.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, maintaining the action [does/does not] offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Conclusion
C: Therefore, the federal court [does/does not] have personal jurisdiction authorized by federal statute over Defendant.
Usage Notes
JurisJotter templates synthesize legal principles into a practical format that supports the development of well-structured, point-rich analyses in a timed exam.
The template features (1) headers identifying the overall issue, analysis, and conclusion. If the analysis begins with an umbrella rule that identifies elements, factors, or steps of the analysis, it will be followed by subheaders that signpost the analysis of each component.
The template also features (2) IRAC labels at the beginning of each paragraph. These headers and labels are included for educational purposes, offering guidance on structuring your analysis. Your usage of the headers is optional but can be helpful to readers. We advise against including the IRAC labels in submitted work.
The templates serve as a general guide for writing and should be adapted to align with (1) your specific factual circumstances and (2) your professor’s preferences, particularly if your professor provides explicit formulations of rules or analyses. For example, you may add or subtract an element or modify its language. Regardless of whether your professor provides explicit formulations, (3) this template will assist you in crafting point-rich analyses.
Please note that these templates are writing aids and not finished products. They are efficiently designed for exam essays to demonstrate conceptual understanding; thus, they are not comprehensive outlines with historical context or dicta.
Questions or comments? Reach out at [email protected].