Loading…
HOW CONGRESS SHOULD FIX PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Personal jurisdiction is a mess, and only Congress can fix it. Courts have sought a single doctrine that simultaneously guarantees convenience for plaintiffs, fairness for defendants, and legitimate authority for the tribunal. With these goals in conflict, each new fact pattern has pulled precedent...
Saved in:
Published in: | Northwestern University law review 2014-06, Vol.108 (4), p.1301 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | |
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 1301 |
container_title | Northwestern University law review |
container_volume | 108 |
creator | Sachs, Stephen E |
description | Personal jurisdiction is a mess, and only Congress can fix it. Courts have sought a single doctrine that simultaneously guarantees convenience for plaintiffs, fairness for defendants, and legitimate authority for the tribunal. With these goals in conflict, each new fact pattern has pulled precedent in a different direction, robbing litigants of certainty and blunting the force of our substantive law. Solving the problem starts with reframing it. Rather than ask where a case may be heard, we should ask who may hear it. If the parties are from the same state, that state's courts are open. If not, the federal courts are. But today's law, thinking about places instead of persons, sows unnecessary confusion by obliging federal courts to follow state jurisdictional rules. This is a mistake, and something we can change. Following the invitation of a recent Supreme Court plurality, this Article suggests a system of nationwide federal personal jurisdiction, relieving federal courts of their jurisdictional dependence on state borders. In a federal forum, the court usually has undoubted authority over the parties-whose convenience can be addressed through well-crafted venue rules, backstopped by due process guarantees. Because our procedural rules have grown up in dependence on state jurisdiction, the Article goes on to draft legislative language addressing the new system's consequences for venue, choice of law, appeal rights, and other related issues. The Article's goal isn't to defend one specific proposal, but to encourage a variety of new proposals and, eventually, to change the direction of the debate. Scholars should spend more time thinking about the jurisdictional rules we would write for ourselves-which the Constitution actually lets us do, at least for federal courts. Only Congress can fix personal jurisdiction; we should start telling it how. |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1629334219</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3512953501</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p183t-72a5fda676ebc1e5159f92e4eeab229250a57758e7c7d5ceb51d2ee8f84ba5fc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjbFuwjAUAD1QqRT4B0udLfnZeXE8ohCIqyhGMVG7ISd5GRAqlMD_F6mdbrq7GZtLqazQaOCVvU3TSUoJgGbOROk_ee7rXVOEwEPp22rDt-6L74sm-Hpd8Y-2cWHj8oPz9ZK9jPE80eqfC9Zui0NeisrvXL6uxBUyfRdGRRyHmJqUuh4IAe1oFSVEsVPKKpQRjcGMTG8G7KlDGBRRNmZJ9zR7vWDvf93r7fLzoOl-PF0et-_n8gipslonCqz-Bb7QOd0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1629334219</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>HOW CONGRESS SHOULD FIX PERSONAL JURISDICTION</title><source>Nexis UK</source><source>Business Source Ultimate【Trial: -2024/12/31】【Remote access available】</source><source>ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest)</source><creator>Sachs, Stephen E</creator><creatorcontrib>Sachs, Stephen E</creatorcontrib><description>Personal jurisdiction is a mess, and only Congress can fix it. Courts have sought a single doctrine that simultaneously guarantees convenience for plaintiffs, fairness for defendants, and legitimate authority for the tribunal. With these goals in conflict, each new fact pattern has pulled precedent in a different direction, robbing litigants of certainty and blunting the force of our substantive law. Solving the problem starts with reframing it. Rather than ask where a case may be heard, we should ask who may hear it. If the parties are from the same state, that state's courts are open. If not, the federal courts are. But today's law, thinking about places instead of persons, sows unnecessary confusion by obliging federal courts to follow state jurisdictional rules. This is a mistake, and something we can change. Following the invitation of a recent Supreme Court plurality, this Article suggests a system of nationwide federal personal jurisdiction, relieving federal courts of their jurisdictional dependence on state borders. In a federal forum, the court usually has undoubted authority over the parties-whose convenience can be addressed through well-crafted venue rules, backstopped by due process guarantees. Because our procedural rules have grown up in dependence on state jurisdiction, the Article goes on to draft legislative language addressing the new system's consequences for venue, choice of law, appeal rights, and other related issues. The Article's goal isn't to defend one specific proposal, but to encourage a variety of new proposals and, eventually, to change the direction of the debate. Scholars should spend more time thinking about the jurisdictional rules we would write for ourselves-which the Constitution actually lets us do, at least for federal courts. Only Congress can fix personal jurisdiction; we should start telling it how.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0029-3571</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago: Northwestern University (on behalf of School of Law)</publisher><subject>Due process of law ; Federal court decisions ; Judges & magistrates ; Jurisdiction ; State court decisions ; State courts ; Venue</subject><ispartof>Northwestern University law review, 2014-06, Vol.108 (4), p.1301</ispartof><rights>Copyright Northwestern University (on behalf of School of Law) 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1629334219/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1629334219?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,11688,36060,44363,74767</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sachs, Stephen E</creatorcontrib><title>HOW CONGRESS SHOULD FIX PERSONAL JURISDICTION</title><title>Northwestern University law review</title><description>Personal jurisdiction is a mess, and only Congress can fix it. Courts have sought a single doctrine that simultaneously guarantees convenience for plaintiffs, fairness for defendants, and legitimate authority for the tribunal. With these goals in conflict, each new fact pattern has pulled precedent in a different direction, robbing litigants of certainty and blunting the force of our substantive law. Solving the problem starts with reframing it. Rather than ask where a case may be heard, we should ask who may hear it. If the parties are from the same state, that state's courts are open. If not, the federal courts are. But today's law, thinking about places instead of persons, sows unnecessary confusion by obliging federal courts to follow state jurisdictional rules. This is a mistake, and something we can change. Following the invitation of a recent Supreme Court plurality, this Article suggests a system of nationwide federal personal jurisdiction, relieving federal courts of their jurisdictional dependence on state borders. In a federal forum, the court usually has undoubted authority over the parties-whose convenience can be addressed through well-crafted venue rules, backstopped by due process guarantees. Because our procedural rules have grown up in dependence on state jurisdiction, the Article goes on to draft legislative language addressing the new system's consequences for venue, choice of law, appeal rights, and other related issues. The Article's goal isn't to defend one specific proposal, but to encourage a variety of new proposals and, eventually, to change the direction of the debate. Scholars should spend more time thinking about the jurisdictional rules we would write for ourselves-which the Constitution actually lets us do, at least for federal courts. Only Congress can fix personal jurisdiction; we should start telling it how.</description><subject>Due process of law</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Judges & magistrates</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>State courts</subject><subject>Venue</subject><issn>0029-3571</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><recordid>eNotjbFuwjAUAD1QqRT4B0udLfnZeXE8ohCIqyhGMVG7ISd5GRAqlMD_F6mdbrq7GZtLqazQaOCVvU3TSUoJgGbOROk_ee7rXVOEwEPp22rDt-6L74sm-Hpd8Y-2cWHj8oPz9ZK9jPE80eqfC9Zui0NeisrvXL6uxBUyfRdGRRyHmJqUuh4IAe1oFSVEsVPKKpQRjcGMTG8G7KlDGBRRNmZJ9zR7vWDvf93r7fLzoOl-PF0et-_n8gipslonCqz-Bb7QOd0</recordid><startdate>20140601</startdate><enddate>20140601</enddate><creator>Sachs, Stephen E</creator><general>Northwestern University (on behalf of School of Law)</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140601</creationdate><title>HOW CONGRESS SHOULD FIX PERSONAL JURISDICTION</title><author>Sachs, Stephen E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p183t-72a5fda676ebc1e5159f92e4eeab229250a57758e7c7d5ceb51d2ee8f84ba5fc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Due process of law</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Judges & magistrates</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>State courts</topic><topic>Venue</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sachs, Stephen E</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ProQuest_ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest_Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Northwestern University law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sachs, Stephen E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>HOW CONGRESS SHOULD FIX PERSONAL JURISDICTION</atitle><jtitle>Northwestern University law review</jtitle><date>2014-06-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>108</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1301</spage><pages>1301-</pages><issn>0029-3571</issn><abstract>Personal jurisdiction is a mess, and only Congress can fix it. Courts have sought a single doctrine that simultaneously guarantees convenience for plaintiffs, fairness for defendants, and legitimate authority for the tribunal. With these goals in conflict, each new fact pattern has pulled precedent in a different direction, robbing litigants of certainty and blunting the force of our substantive law. Solving the problem starts with reframing it. Rather than ask where a case may be heard, we should ask who may hear it. If the parties are from the same state, that state's courts are open. If not, the federal courts are. But today's law, thinking about places instead of persons, sows unnecessary confusion by obliging federal courts to follow state jurisdictional rules. This is a mistake, and something we can change. Following the invitation of a recent Supreme Court plurality, this Article suggests a system of nationwide federal personal jurisdiction, relieving federal courts of their jurisdictional dependence on state borders. In a federal forum, the court usually has undoubted authority over the parties-whose convenience can be addressed through well-crafted venue rules, backstopped by due process guarantees. Because our procedural rules have grown up in dependence on state jurisdiction, the Article goes on to draft legislative language addressing the new system's consequences for venue, choice of law, appeal rights, and other related issues. The Article's goal isn't to defend one specific proposal, but to encourage a variety of new proposals and, eventually, to change the direction of the debate. Scholars should spend more time thinking about the jurisdictional rules we would write for ourselves-which the Constitution actually lets us do, at least for federal courts. Only Congress can fix personal jurisdiction; we should start telling it how.</abstract><cop>Chicago</cop><pub>Northwestern University (on behalf of School of Law)</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0029-3571 |
ispartof | Northwestern University law review, 2014-06, Vol.108 (4), p.1301 |
issn | 0029-3571 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1629334219 |
source | Nexis UK; Business Source Ultimate【Trial: -2024/12/31】【Remote access available】; ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest) |
subjects | Due process of law Federal court decisions Judges & magistrates Jurisdiction State court decisions State courts Venue |
title | HOW CONGRESS SHOULD FIX PERSONAL JURISDICTION |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T14%3A01%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=HOW%20CONGRESS%20SHOULD%20FIX%20PERSONAL%20JURISDICTION&rft.jtitle=Northwestern%20University%20law%20review&rft.au=Sachs,%20Stephen%20E&rft.date=2014-06-01&rft.volume=108&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1301&rft.pages=1301-&rft.issn=0029-3571&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E3512953501%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p183t-72a5fda676ebc1e5159f92e4eeab229250a57758e7c7d5ceb51d2ee8f84ba5fc3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1629334219&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |