How are international defendants evaluated for personal jurisdiction?

The evaluation of international defendants for personal jurisdiction primarily revolves around the concept of "minimum contacts" with the forum state. This means that a court must assess whether the defendant has established sufficient connections with the state in which the lawsuit is being filed. The minimum contacts standard ensures that it is fair and just for the state to assert jurisdiction over the foreign defendant.

Minimum contacts can arise from various activities, such as conducting business, having a physical presence, or engaging in transactions within the forum state. When a defendant's actions connect them to the state in a meaningful way, it can support the assertion of personal jurisdiction. This approach is rooted in the Due Process Clause, which requires that defendants have a fair opportunity to defend themselves in a court that has jurisdiction over them.

In contrast, evaluating defendants based solely on nationality, political ties, international treaties, or solely on past lawsuits in the U.S. does not align with the modern understanding of personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction analysis focuses on the defendant's interactions with the specific state rather than their national status or prior legal history. Therefore, the correct basis for evaluating international defendants is indeed their minimum contacts with the forum state.