Why is "minimum contacts" a significant principle in personal jurisdiction?

The principle of "minimum contacts" is significant in personal jurisdiction because it establishes an essential connection that justifies a court's authority over an out-of-state defendant. This doctrine was solidified in the landmark case of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, there must be sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state. These contacts can include various factors such as conducting business, engaging in contractual relationships, or having physical presence within the state.

The rationale behind this principle is to ensure fair play and substantial justice; it limits the power of states to summon defendants who have no relevant ties to the forum state. When a defendant purposefully avails themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within a state, they can reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. This is foundational to ensuring that the exercise of jurisdiction is fair and equitable, reflecting the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The other options don't fully encapsulate the breadth of the "minimum contacts" principle. For instance, while minimum contacts can often arise from economic transactions, they are not limited to them. The threshold does not permit courts to bypass fact review but rather requires an analysis