Top Law Schools

1. Is there a provision in the Constitution that has been interpreted to require every state to enact a long-arm statute?
2. If there is no such requirement, is the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause the de facto law? or would it fall under the 5th? or would common law or custom take over? or would Rule 4(k)(1)(a) act as a supplement?

I couldn't find any direction on that issue and was curious.

Edit to provide context: Glannon's text says "The Due Process Clause is only a limit on a court's power, not an authorization to exercise that power." That limit vs. authorization distinguisher raised the thought.

Given that the Constitution provides only a limit and not authorization, the Constitution cannot authorize exercise of personal jurisdiction in the absence of a statute. If there is no long-arm statute, you would presumably look to common law, but in the absence of any law on the matter, there is no jurisdiction over foreign defendants.

I don't think this scenario exists in practice, FWIW.

Lincoln wrote:Given that the Constitution provides only a limit and not authorization, the Constitution cannot authorize exercise of personal jurisdiction in the absence of a statute. If there is no long-arm statute, you would presumably look to common law, but in the absence of any law on the matter, there is no jurisdiction over foreign defendants.

I don't think this scenario exists in practice, FWIW.

It can come up in specific attempts to gain jurisdiction over an absent defendant where the cause of action isn't part of the long arm statute. That said, I doubt a traditional law school exam will let you stop at "long arm statute doesn't reach this defendant, end of story." If the exam has multiple choice or lots of short answer questions then I can see it being used to trick some people.