Professor Jason Jarvis, "Conspiracy Jurisdiction" -- Stanford Law Review (forthcoming)
Professor Jason Jarvis's article, "Conspiracy Jurisdiction," (SSRN) will be published in the Stanford Law Review (forthcoming 2024). The article analyzes the due process contours of conspiracy jurisdiction, the theory that a defendant may be subject to personal jurisdiction in the forum state based on actions taken in furtherance of a conspiracy. The article is co-written with Naomi Price.
Abstract of "Conspiracy Jurisdiction"
Conspiracy jurisdiction is the theory that a defendant may be subject to personal jurisdiction in the forum state based on actions taken in furtherance of a conspiracy. What makes conspiracy jurisdiction surprising and unique is that as long as one co-conspirator’s acts were directed at the forum state, other members of the conspiracy may be subject to jurisdiction in the forum state even if they otherwise lack their own direct contacts. While all personal jurisdiction issues are subject to the Due Process Clause, nowhere else is it so peculiarly implicated—and sometimes sidestepped—as when conspiracy forms the basis for personal jurisdiction. This still-developing gloss on specific jurisdiction has seen increasing but chaotic use in the federal and state courts. As a result, and in contrast to the doctrine’s increasing use in litigation, scholarship is extremely sparse.
This paper is the first to offer a comprehensive look at conspiracy jurisdiction’s provenance and the complex current state of the law, analyzing the doctrine’s varied applications in light of recent Supreme Court authority. Our article relies on chiefly on Walden v. Fiore and Ford v. Montana, which influence but do not control the doctrine, to analyze the due process contours of conspiracy jurisdiction and how the doctrine can—and will—survive once the Supreme Court inevitably grants review to resolve an active and jagged circuit split.