(2014), 571 U.S. at p. ––, 134 S. Ct. at p. 1123.
In August 2006, petitioner Anthony Walden, a Georgia police officer serving as a deputized Drug Enforcement Administration agent at the Atlanta airport, received notification from a San Juan airport official about respondents Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson.1 Fiore and Gipson, professional gamblers with residences in California and Nevada, had been searched by Transportation Security Administration agents at the San Juan airport in Puerto Rico, where nearly $97,000 in cash was discovered in their carry-on bags.2
Upon their arrival in Atlanta for a connecting flight to Las Vegas, Walden and another agent approached Fiore and Gipson at the departure gate.3 After questioning them about the cash, which they described as their gambling bank and winnings, Walden conducted a drug-sniffing dog test and seized the funds, advising that the money would be returned upon proof of a legitimate source.4
After the seizure, Walden helped draft an affidavit to establish probable cause for forfeiture of the funds and forwarded it to a United States Attorney’s Office in Georgia.5 Respondents later alleged that this affidavit contained false and misleading statements, including misrepresentations about the airport encounter and omissions of exculpatory information regarding the absence of drug evidence and the legitimate origins of the funds.6 No forfeiture complaint was ultimately filed, and the DEA returned the funds to respondents in March 2007.7
Respondents then filed a tort suit against Walden in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging violations of their Fourth Amendment rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents.8 The District Court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction.9 The Ninth Circuit reversed.10 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.11
Whether due process permits a Nevada court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a Georgia defendant on the basis that he knew his allegedly tortious conduct in Georgia would delay the return of funds to plaintiffs with connections to Nevada?12
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constrains a State’s authority to bind a nonresident defendant to a judgment of its courts.13 It requires that the nonresident have minimum contacts with the forum State such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.14 The inquiry into the minimum contacts necessary to create specific jurisdiction focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.15 For a State to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State.16 The relationship must arise out of contacts that the defendant himself creates with the forum State.17 The analysis must look to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.18 These same principles apply when intentional torts are involved.19 A forum State’s exercise of jurisdiction over an out-of-state intentional tortfeasor must be based on intentional conduct by the defendant that creates the necessary contacts with the forum.20
No. Walden's relevant conduct occurred entirely in Georgia, where he approached, questioned, and searched respondents and seized the cash at the Atlanta airport, and where he helped draft a false probable cause affidavit and forwarded it to a United States Attorney’s Office in Georgia.21 Walden never traveled to Nevada, conducted activities within Nevada, contacted anyone in Nevada, or sent anything or anyone to Nevada.22 Although respondents resided in Nevada and allegedly suffered injury there from the delayed return of their funds, this injury occurred in Nevada only because respondents chose to reside there, and mere injury to a forum resident is not a sufficient connection to the forum.23 The Ninth Circuit improperly shifted the focus from Walden's contacts with Nevada to his contacts with respondents, but the plaintiff's contacts with the forum cannot be decisive in determining whether the defendant's due process rights are violated.24
The District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over petitioner.25