How do federal courts typically assess personal jurisdiction?

Federal courts typically assess personal jurisdiction by applying state personal jurisdiction rules. This approach stems from the requirement that federal courts must respect the personal jurisdiction limits established by the states in which they operate. According to the principles outlined by the Supreme Court, the federal court's jurisdiction is often hinged on whether the state courts in the same district would have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

This means that federal courts will look to the relevant state laws to determine the scope and limits of personal jurisdiction. They analyze the state's long-arm statute, which dictates the circumstances under which a non-resident defendant can be brought into the jurisdiction of the state's courts. Generally, if a state court can assert jurisdiction over a defendant, then the federal court in that state can too, provided the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction.

As for the other options, while federal statutes are important and can influence specific types of cases, they are not the primary determinant for personal jurisdiction in federal courts. International law is not typically applied in this context, as personal jurisdiction primarily deals with domestic state law. Evaluating the defendant's residency is relevant but does not capture the comprehensive approach federal courts take when assessing personal jurisdiction, which involves analyzing state rules rather than relying solely on residency factors.