141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021)
Ford Motor Company is a global auto company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Michigan.1 It markets, sells, and services its products across the United States and overseas, annually distributing over 2.5 million new cars, trucks, and SUVs to over 3,200 licensed dealerships.2
Ford also encourages a resale market for its products: Almost all its dealerships buy and sell used Fords, as well as selling new ones.3 To enhance its brand and increase its sales, Ford engages in wide-ranging promotional activities, including television, print, online, and direct-mail advertisements.4
In Montana, Markkaya Gullett was driving her Explorer near her home in the State when the tread separated from a rear tire.5 The vehicle spun out, rolled into a ditch, and came to rest upside down.6 Gullett died at the scene of the crash.7 The representative of her estate sued Ford in Montana state court, bringing claims for a design defect, failure to warn, and negligence.8
In Minnesota, Adam Bandemer was a passenger in his friend’s Crown Victoria, traveling on a rural road in the State to a favorite ice-fishing spot.9 When his friend rear-ended a snowplow, this car too landed in a ditch.10 Bandemer’s air bag failed to deploy, and he suffered serious brain damage.11 He sued Ford in Minnesota state court, asserting products-liability, negligence, and breach-of-warranty claims.12
Ford moved to dismiss the two suits for lack of personal jurisdiction, on basically identical grounds.13 According to Ford, the state court had jurisdiction only if the company’s conduct in the State had given rise to the plaintiff’s claims.14 Ford had designed the Explorer and Crown Victoria in Michigan, and it had manufactured the cars in Kentucky and Canada.15 The company had originally sold the cars at issue outside the forum States—the Explorer in Washington, the Crown Victoria in North Dakota.16 Only later resales and relocations by consumers had brought the vehicles to Montana and Minnesota.17
Both the Montana and the Minnesota Supreme Courts rejected Ford’s argument.18 The Montana court began by detailing the varied ways Ford purposefully seeks to serve the market in Montana.19 The company advertises in the State, has thirty-six dealerships there, sells automobiles specifically Ford Explorers and parts to Montana residents, and provides them with certified repair, replacement, and recall services.20 Minnesota’s Supreme Court agreed, highlighting how Ford’s marketing and advertisements influenced state residents to purchase and drive more Ford vehicles.21 Ford had sold in Minnesota more than 2,000 1994 Crown Victorias, the very type of car involved in Bandemer’s suit.22 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider if Ford is subject to jurisdiction in these cases.23
Whether the Due Process Clause permits Montana and Minnesota state courts to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Ford Motor Company in these product-liability suits arising from in-state accidents?24
Specific jurisdiction requires that a defendant purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State.25 The plaintiff’s claims must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.26 This standard is satisfied when a company systematically serves a market for a product in the state and the product malfunctions there.27
Yes. Ford purposefully availed itself of the Montana and Minnesota markets by advertising, selling, and servicing the Explorer and Crown Victoria models and providing service and parts there for many years.28 The plaintiffs’ claims relate to these contacts because the injuries occurred in the forum states to residents from the malfunction of vehicles Ford had systematically promoted in those states.29 This affiliation between the forum, the defendant, and the litigation supports jurisdiction without a strict causal requirement tied to the initial sale of the particular car.30
Ford’s extensive in-state activities created a strong relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.31 The company’s efforts to serve the market for these vehicles in Montana and Minnesota made it fair to subject Ford to suit there when the products caused injury to residents in those states.32
The Due Process Clause permits Montana and Minnesota state courts to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Ford Motor Company in these cases.33
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Alito concurred in the judgment.34 He agreed that the cases are controlled by existing precedent such as World-Wide Volkswagen without any need to alter or refine the doctrine of specific jurisdiction.35 Alito emphasized that Ford’s long-standing heavy presence in both states through advertising, dealerships, sales, and parts distribution made it reasonable for the states to exercise jurisdiction over claims arising from accidents on their roads injuring their residents.36
He rejected Ford’s proposed but-for causation requirement as unprecedented and unnecessary.37 Alito cautioned that the majority’s parsing of “arise out of or relate to” as creating a new independent category risks needless complications.38 The phrase “relate to” must still be limited by some form of causal connection in practice.39
Joined by Justice Thomas
Justice Gorsuch concurred in the judgment.40 He agreed that Montana and Minnesota courts may exercise jurisdiction.41 But he criticized the majority for introducing confusion by elevating the disjunctive “or” in the “arise out of or relate to” formulation.42 Gorsuch noted that this created an undefined affiliation test detached from causation.43 He observed that the old causation approach would likely have sufficed here.44 Gorsuch questioned whether the new test supplants or supplements prior doctrine.45
He further suggested that International Shoe’s framework itself may be increasingly unworkable for modern corporate activity.46 Gorsuch stated that the cases highlight the need to reconsider personal jurisdiction doctrine in light of the Constitution’s original meaning rather than continuing to add layers of judicially created tests.47