Comments on: SCOTUS: state courts not on elastic jurisdictional leash

By: CarLitGuy

CarLitGuy — Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:25:27 +0000

While I agree that Justice Sotomayor’s position in this area is not ungrounded in past practice, past practice has had the less than desirable effect of allowing just a few states to dictate policy and business practices to the whole of the Nation in many regards, particularly in pharmaceuticals and labeling. I appreciate the S.C.’s willingness to reconsider the policy effects of their past musings on theory, and to clarify their vague “fairness” inquiry to re-establish some limits of a particular Court’s (or Judge’s) reach.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:06:18 +0000

In reply to great unknown. In fairness, it's closer to the inverse of that. Sotomayor views the exposure of a national business to California jurisdiction as generally fair and (to simplify) sees many jurisdictional claims of this sort as passing muster so long as they are not unfair. One reason to think this is not a frivolous argument is that in some landmark past cases on personal jurisdiction the Court did lean pretty heavily on a vague "fairness" inquiry. I much prefer its current approach, but Sotomayor is not making up the idea of applying a fairness inquiry.

By: great unknown

great unknown — Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:15:11 +0000

Justice Sotomayor dissented because of the overriding Constitutional principle: “It’s not fair.”