Also known as: sufficiently nexus · nexus requirement · minimum contacts
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An adequate link between a defendant's purposeful contacts with a forum and a plaintiff's claim that permits a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction consistent with due process. The link must arise from the defendant's own conduct directed at the forum rather than from the unilateral actions of the plaintiff or a third party.
Sophia Singh, a New York resident, mailed a trust document to a Florida trustee for execution. After the trustee died, Singh sued the Florida estate in New York. The trustee had never traveled to New York or directed any activity there. The court found no sufficient nexus because the trustee's contacts resulted solely from Singh's unilateral choice to send documents to Florida.
Seth Shapiro, a State J consumer, ordered clothing repeatedly from StyleWave, an out-of-state online retailer that shipped dozens of orders to State J and ran State J-specific promotions. Shapiro sued in State J for breach of warranty arising from those purchases. The court held that the repeated, targeted shipments and promotions supplied a sufficient nexus between StyleWave's forum contacts and Shapiro's claim.
Simon Stern, a nonresident, owned shares in a Delaware corporation. A plaintiff sued Stern in Delaware to assert quasi in rem jurisdiction over an unrelated tort claim arising in another state. The shares were the only Delaware asset. The court ruled that the mere presence of the shares did not create a sufficient nexus to the claim, so jurisdiction failed.
Samantha Stone, a low-level federal employee, accepted honoraria for articles unrelated to her duties. The government sought to enforce a broad honoraria ban. The court examined whether a sufficient nexus existed between the speech and any demonstrated harm to government operations and found none, so the ban could not be applied to her.
In 1989 Congress enacted the Ethics Reform Act, which amended § 501(b) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to provide that an individual may not receive any honorarium while that individual is a Member, officer or employee. The term honorarium was defined as a payment of money or any thing of value for an appearance, speech or article. The prohibition included an express exception for actual and necessary travel expenses. It contained an implicit exception for books. The ban applied to nearly all employees in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The respondents are the National Treasury Employees Union and several individual career civil servants employed full time by Executive departments and agencies below grade GS-16. The individual respondents had previously received compensation for writing or speaking on topics unrelated to their duties. These included a mail handler who lectured on the Quaker religion, an aerospace engineer who lectured on black history for $100 per lecture, a microbiologist who earned almost $3,000 per year reviewing dance performances, and a tax examiner who wrote articles about the environment. In 1992 the respondents filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of the honoraria ban. Pursuant to a stipulation with the Government, the District Court certified the Union as the representative of a class composed of all Executive Branch employees below grade GS-16 who would receive honoraria but for the statute. The District Court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment, held the statute unconstitutional insofar as it applies to Executive Branch employees, and enjoined enforcement against any such employee. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the judgment as to the individual respondents and the class but upheld the statute as applied to high-level officials. It also severed the application of the ban to the Executive Branch from the remainder of the statute. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseThe contact must be purposeful, created by the defendant, and directly related to the plaintiff's claim. Unilateral actions by the plaintiff or third parties do not count. The inquiry focuses on whether the defendant invoked the benefits and protections of the forum's laws in a way that makes jurisdiction fair.
Supporting sources
No. When the claim is unrelated to the property, its mere presence does not establish the required connection. The minimum contacts standard applies to quasi in rem actions just as it does to in personam actions.
Supporting sources
Each plaintiff's claim must independently arise out of or relate to the defendant's forum contacts. Similar claims by residents do not create jurisdiction over nonresidents whose injuries occurred entirely outside the forum with no forum-related connection.
Supporting sources
…judicial legislation also persuades us to reject the Government's second suggestion—that we modify the remedy by crafting a nexus requirement for the honoraria ban. We cannot be sure that our attempt to redraft the statute to limit its coverage to cases involving an undesirable nexus between the speaker's official duties and…