Why Courts Can’t Always Reach You: Personal Jurisdiction, Fairness, and the Legacy of Pennoyer v. Neff

BY Arjan Bir Sodhi for Lex Republica

Before a court can decide who is right and who is wrong, it must answer a more basic question: does this court have the authority to make the defendant show up at all?

That question lies at the heart of personal jurisdiction, one of the quiet but powerful limits the Constitution places on judicial power.

Most people encounter jurisdiction through headlines or lawsuits they never expected to be part of. But personal jurisdiction is not about convenience or forum shopping. It is about fairness, sovereignty, and the constitutional boundary between states.

Personal Jurisdiction Is Not About the Case. It’s About the Defendant.

Law students often learn early that courts must have subject matter jurisdiction. That requirement asks whether a court is allowed to hear this kind of case. Personal jurisdiction asks something very different: is it fair and lawful to force this particular defendant to defend the case here?

Imagine this scenario. A Massachusetts resident vacations in Alaska and gets into a car accident with an Alaska resident. After returning home, the Massachusetts resident decides to sue in Massachusetts state court.

The court unquestionably has subject matter jurisdiction over tort claims. But that alone does not give it power over the Alaskan defendant. From her perspective, she lives in Alaska, drove in Alaska, and was involved in an accident in Alaska. Forcing her to litigate thousands of miles away would feel arbitrary and unjust.

The Constitution agrees with her.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not allow a state to deprive a person of property without fair procedure. Because civil judgments often result in money damages or property loss, due process requires that courts have a legitimate relationship to either the defendant or the dispute before exercising authority.

That principle did not emerge overnight. It was shaped decisively by a nineteenth-century case that still casts a long shadow: Pennoyer v. Neff.

The World According to Pennoyer v. Neff

Decided in 1878, Pennoyer v. Neff reflects a territorial vision of jurisdiction rooted in state sovereignty. The Supreme Court held that a state’s courts have power only over persons and property physically within the state’s borders.

In Pennoyer, an Oregon lawyer sued a former client who no longer lived in the state. Unable to find him, the lawyer relied on notice by publication in a local newspaper. The defendant never appeared. The court entered a default judgment and later allowed the plaintiff to seize and sell the defendant’s Oregon land to satisfy the debt.

Years later, the defendant returned and challenged the sale. The Supreme Court sided with him.

The Court drew a sharp distinction between two kinds of jurisdiction. A court may exercise in personam jurisdiction only if the defendant is personally served within the state or voluntarily appears. Without that, any judgment purporting to impose personal liability is void.

By contrast, a court may exercise in rem jurisdiction over property physically located within the state. But even then, the property must be attached at the outset of the case. Jurisdiction cannot be manufactured after the fact.

Because Oregon never had personal jurisdiction over Neff and never properly asserted jurisdiction over his land at the beginning of the case, the judgment authorizing the sale was constitutionally defective.

The message was unmistakable: states cannot reach beyond their borders to impose personal obligations on absent defendants. To do so would violate due process and invite abuse.

Why This Still Matters in a Digital Age

At first glance, Pennoyer seems like a relic of a slower, simpler world. Horse-drawn travel, local newspapers, and rigid borders feel far removed from online commerce, remote work, and nationwide markets.

But the underlying concern remains deeply modern.

Personal jurisdiction is still about preventing unfair surprise. It protects individuals and businesses from being hauled into distant courts based on tenuous or accidental connections. Without these limits, plaintiffs could forum shop aggressively, and defendants would face enormous litigation costs simply to defend themselves.

Modern doctrine has moved beyond Pennoyer’s strict territorial rules. Today’s framework focuses on minimum contacts and whether the defendant purposefully availed themselves of the forum state. But Pennoyer established the foundational idea that jurisdiction is a constitutional question, not merely a procedural one.

Even now, courts reject jurisdiction when the defendant’s connection to the forum is random, fortuitous, or attenuated. A viral tweet seen nationwide does not automatically subject its author to suit everywhere. A single online sale does not always justify being sued across the country. The fairness principle first articulated in Pennoyer still animates these decisions.

The Enduring Lesson

Personal jurisdiction reminds us that courts are powerful, but not limitless. The authority to decide disputes carries with it an obligation to respect constitutional boundaries and basic fairness.

Pennoyer v. Neff may no longer define the full scope of jurisdictional doctrine, but it established the essential rule that judgments rendered without lawful authority are no judgments at all.