What is one key difference between state and federal courts regarding personal jurisdiction?

The distinction that state courts follow broader long-arm statutes is key to understanding personal jurisdiction. Long-arm statutes allow state courts to reach beyond their territorial boundaries to assert jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants, provided that the defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with the state. This can include a wide array of activities, such as conducting business within the state, owning property there, or committing a tort that has effects in the state.

In contrast, federal courts are limited in their ability to assert jurisdiction by the rules set forth in the federal statute and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which often require a closer connection to the federal court's own jurisdictional reach. While federal courts can also facilitate personal jurisdiction through state law where they sit, they do not have universally broader statutes comparable to many state-long arm statutes.

Additionally, options addressing federal court behavior in personal jurisdiction issues, such as the notion that federal courts rarely handle these cases or that state courts need federal approval for jurisdiction, do not accurately reflect the realities of jurisdictional law and practice. Federal courts can and do handle personal jurisdiction matters, and they operate under guidelines that do not require state courts to seek federal approval for asserting their jurisdiction.