What characterizes the “TAG jurisdiction” discussed in Burnham v. Superior Court?

The concept of "TAG jurisdiction," as articulated in Burnham v. Superior Court, refers specifically to jurisdiction that is established based on a defendant's physical presence in the forum state at the time the lawsuit is initiated. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over an individual who is physically present in the state, regardless of whether they have any other contacts with the state. This means that simply being in the state—such as visiting, working, or temporarily residing there—can grant the state authority to adjudicate claims against that individual.

This principle is grounded in traditional notions of personal jurisdiction, which emphasize the importance of a defendant's physical presence for the court to exercise its authority. It underscores the idea that presence itself can create sufficient contacts with the forum state to justify jurisdiction. The ruling reaffirms that jurisdiction does not solely depend on past interactions or activities but can also stem from being physically located within the jurisdiction when a legal action is brought.

The other choices, while they touch on different aspects of jurisdiction, do not pertain directly to the core principle established in Burnham v. Superior Court regarding TAG jurisdiction.