465 U.S. 783 (1984)
Respondent Shirley Jones, a California resident who lives and works in the state, brought suit in California Superior Court against the National Enquirer, its local distributing company, and petitioners Calder and South for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional harm.1 The Enquirer is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Florida that publishes a national weekly newspaper with a total circulation of over 5 million copies, of which approximately 600,000 are sold in California.2 Petitioner South is a Florida resident.3 Petitioner Calder is also a Florida resident.4 South, a reporter for the Enquirer, wrote the first draft of the challenged article that appeared in the October 9, 1979 issue, conducted most of his research in Florida while making phone calls to sources in California, and called Jones's home shortly before publication to read a draft to her husband.5 Calder, president and editor of the Enquirer, reviewed and approved the initial evaluation of the article's subject, edited it in final form, and declined to print a retraction requested by Jones.6
The article concerned the California activities of Jones, an entertainer whose television career was centered in California, and it was drawn from California sources.7 Jones's husband later filed a voluntary dismissal of his complaint.8 Petitioners were served with process by mail in Florida and entered special appearances to move to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction.9 The Superior Court granted the motion, reasoning that although petitioners' actions in Florida ordinarily would support jurisdiction in California, First Amendment concerns required special solicitude and that Jones's rights could be fully satisfied in her suit against the publisher alone.10
The California Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that petitioners intended to and did cause tortious injury to Jones in California and that the actions causing those effects, though performed outside the state, provided a valid basis for jurisdiction.11 The Court of Appeal rejected the Superior Court's view that First Amendment considerations must be weighed against jurisdiction and noted that neither petitioner's contacts with California would support jurisdiction over an unrelated cause of action.12 The Supreme Court of California denied a timely petition for hearing.13
On petitioners' appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, probable jurisdiction was postponed and the jurisdictional statement was later treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the Court granted.14
Whether California courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over Florida residents who wrote and edited an allegedly libelous article about a California resident that was published in a national magazine with substantial circulation in California?15
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits personal jurisdiction over a defendant in any State with which the defendant has minimum contacts such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.16 Jurisdiction is proper when intentional conduct is expressly aimed at the forum state and causes injury there.17 This makes the forum the focal point of both the story and the harm.18
Yes. Respondent Shirley Jones lives and works in California as an entertainer whose television career was centered in California.19 The article concerned her California activities, was drawn from California sources, and petitioners knew the brunt of the injury would be felt in California where the Enquirer sells approximately 600,000 copies.20 Petitioners' intentional and allegedly tortious actions were expressly aimed at California, so they must reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.21
California courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over the petitioners.22
Whether the status of the article's author and editor as employees of the publisher insulates them from personal jurisdiction in the state where the article caused injury?23
No. Petitioners South and Calder are primary participants in the alleged wrongdoing intentionally directed at Jones in California.26 South wrote the first draft of the article and made numerous phone calls to California sources while Calder reviewed the subject, edited the final version, and refused a retraction.27 Their status as employees of the Enquirer does not insulate them from jurisdiction.28 Their individual contacts with California must be assessed separately from those of their employer rather than shielded by the corporate entity.29
The status of the article's author and editor as employees of the publisher does not insulate them from personal jurisdiction in California.30
Whether First Amendment considerations must be weighed in the analysis of whether personal jurisdiction exists over the author and editor of an allegedly libelous article?31
No. Reintroducing First Amendment concerns at the jurisdictional stage would constitute double counting because the potential chill on protected activity is already taken into account in the constitutional limitations on the substantive law.34 The Court has declined to grant special procedural protections to defendants in libel actions beyond those embodied in the substantive law, as illustrated by its refusal to create an editorial-process privilege in related contexts.35
First Amendment considerations need not be weighed in the jurisdictional analysis.36