Palestine Liberation Organization, et al. v. Mark I. Sokolow, et al.

American courts have recognized since the Founding that a judgment entered without jurisdiction is void. Then and now, judicial actions performed without jurisdiction are not “simply erroneous, but absolutely void.” Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano, 589 U.S. 57, 63–64 (2020) (quoting Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 485, 493 (1880)). Early American courts did not understand jurisdiction as mere rule of procedure but as a requirement rooted in Article III’s limits on judicial power. A federal jury returned a verdict against Petitioners in 2015 when the district court indisputably lacked personal jurisdiction over them. The court of appeals vacated that judgment and directed dismissal in 2016, and this Court denied certiorari in 2018. Congress enacted a statute that created personal jurisdiction based on Petitioners’ conduct during and after 2020. The court of appeals then recalled its mandate and reinstated the original judgment. The question presented is: Whether a court of appeals’ equitable power to recall a mandate permits it to reinstate a final judgment that was vacated for lack of personal jurisdiction years prior, based on personal jurisdiction arising under a statute that did not create that jurisdiction until long after the original, vacated judgment became “final” and all appeals were finished.