Ethan Fullerton, et al. v. LG Chem, Ltd.

“Every sovereign has the exclusive right to command within his territory.” Suydam v. Williamson, 65 U.S. 427, 433 (1860). Federal courts exercise the judicial power of the United States comprising two jurisdictional components – jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute and jurisdiction over the parties to that dispute. Although the Court recently clarified the contours of personal jurisdiction over domestic corporate defendants,¹ the Court has not resolved the parameters of personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporate defendant who has invoked diversityof-alienage subject-matter jurisdiction to avail itself of the federal courts.²

1. Should international corporate defendants with worldwide reach be granted jurisdictional protection not afforded domestic corporations?

2. Does a defendant who invokes federal court jurisdiction by removing a state action subject itself to federal jurisdictional limits under the Fifth Amendment?

3. Can a state limit the jurisdiction of federal courts by enacting a longarm statute that is more restrictive than federal due process? ¹ “When a company like Ford serves a market for a product in a State and that product causes injury in the State to one of its residents, the State’s courts may entertain the resulting suit.” Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 141 S.Ct. 1017 (2021). ² “[S]ince our decision concerns the due process limits on the exercise of specific jurisdiction by a State, we leave open the question of whether the Fifth Amendment imposes the same restrictions on the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a federal court.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1784 (2017).