Also known as: territoriality principle · territorial principle · territorial jurisdiction
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A foundational doctrine holding that a sovereign state's laws and judicial power operate only within its geographic borders. The principle limits the reach of national statutes and court authority to persons or property inside the territory unless comity or statute provides otherwise.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Maria Lopez and other diners sue Harvest Bistro after a food-poisoning outbreak at a city street festival. Harvest Bistro asks the court to recognize that the festival draws thousands of visitors and ranks as the city's largest annual event. The court grants the request because the scale of the event is common knowledge among residents within the district.
Neff, an Oregon resident, owns land in Oregon but never appears in a California proceeding. Pennoyer obtains a default judgment in California and attempts to execute against the Oregon land. The Supreme Court holds that California lacks power to affect title to property located entirely outside its borders.
Heitner sues corporate officers in Delaware over alleged mismanagement of a company incorporated there. The officers own no property in Delaware and reside elsewhere. The Court rules that Delaware cannot assert jurisdiction over the officers' out-of-state interests solely on the basis of the company's local incorporation.
The widow of a seaman killed aboard a vessel on the high seas brings a wrongful-death action in federal court. The defendant argues that no federal statute creates the claim because the death occurred outside U.S. waters. The Court recognizes a general maritime wrongful-death action to fill the gap left by territorial limits on state and federal statutes.
California officials sue several foreign insurers for an alleged conspiracy to fix reinsurance prices affecting U.S. policyholders. The insurers argue that their conduct occurred entirely abroad and therefore lies beyond U.S. antitrust reach. The Court holds that U.S. law may apply when the foreign conduct produces substantial effects inside the United States.
Nigerian plaintiffs sue a foreign corporation in U.S. court for alleged human-rights violations committed entirely on foreign soil. The defendants move to dismiss, contending that the claims fall outside the territorial scope of U.S. law. The Court dismisses the action, applying the presumption against extraterritorial application of the statute.
Rule 201(b)(1) permits a court to notice a fact that is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction. The principle therefore confines judicial notice to matters commonly understood inside the geographic area where the court sits.
The principle creates a presumption against extraterritorial application, but Congress may override the presumption by statute. When foreign conduct produces substantial effects inside the United States, courts may still apply U.S. law.
…to render judgment in personam is grounded on their de facto power over the defendant’s person. Hence his presence within the territorial jurisdiction of a court was prerequisite to its rendition of a judgment personally binding him. Pennoyer v. Neff , 95 U. S. 714, 733. But now that the capias ad respondendum has given way to personal…