The Line Between Liberty and Union: Exercising Personal Jurisdiction over Officials from Other States

This Note examines whether personal jurisdiction analysis should apply differently in cases against officials from other states (or “foreign state officials”). The Supreme Court faced this question nearly thirty years ago in Leroy v. Great Western United Corp., but it avoided the issue by disposing of the case on improper venue grounds. Since that time, courts adjudicating suits against foreign state officials under federal law have shown marked disagreement over the roles that federalism and state sovereignty might play in determining whether personal jurisdiction properly lies. Most recently, in Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, the Second Circuit held that personal jurisdiction arose in New York over attorneys general from thirty-one states in a case concerning the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), negotiated in New York City to settle state claims against the country’s major tobacco companies. In reaching its conclusion, the court noted that, for jurisdictional purposes, the MSA was not unlike “an ordinary commercial contract.” This Note reaches the opposite conclusion. After reviewing the relevant doctrinal principles and case law, this Note concludes that there is room to address federalism concerns as part of the personal jurisdiction inquiry in federal cases. Specifically, several reasonableness factors highlighted in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, in particular “the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies,” invite consideration of federalism principles. By uniformly assessing state sovereignty concerns under the reasonableness prong in federal cases, the courts will bring stability to an area of law in need of a firmer foundation.