Can a state court exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who is temporarily present in the state and served with process there, even if the lawsuit is unrelated to their activities within that state, without violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Dennis and Francie Burnham married in West Virginia in 1976 and moved to New Jersey in 1977, where their two children were born. In July 1987, the couple separated, with Mrs. Burnham moving to California with the children and agreeing to file for divorce there. Mr. Burnham filed for divorce in New Jersey in October 1987, citing desertion. Mrs. Burnham filed for divorce in California in January 1988.

Later that month, Mr. Burnham visited California for business and to see his children. During this visit, he was served with a California court summons and a copy of Mrs. Burnham's divorce petition. Upon returning to New Jersey, Mr. Burnham made a special appearance in California Superior Court to quash the service of process, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.

Burnham filed a motion in California Superior Court to quash service of process, contending the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The Superior Court denied Burnham's motion. Burnham then sought mandamus relief from the California Court of Appeal, which was also denied. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.

(Scalia, J.)

Yes. A state court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant temporarily present in the state and served with process there, even for lawsuits unrelated to their in-state activities, without violating due process. This jurisdictional practice is deeply rooted in American legal tradition, predating the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption. The longstanding nature of this jurisdictional basis satisfies due process requirements, embodying the "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" that define constitutional due process standards. Physical presence in a state's territory has historically been viewed as a sufficient basis for asserting jurisdiction over an individual, regardless of the duration of their stay or the nature of their activities within the state. This principle aligns with fundamental concepts of state sovereignty and territorial power. The exercise of such jurisdiction does not offend modern notions of due process because it provides clear notice to individuals that they may be subject to suit in a state by virtue of their physical presence there. Furthermore, this jurisdictional rule promotes predictability in the legal system and prevents individuals from evading legal obligations by leaving a jurisdiction. The transient jurisdiction doctrine, as this practice is known, remains a valid and constitutional means of establishing personal jurisdiction, balancing the state's interest in providing a forum for redress with the defendant's liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause.

Concurrence (White, J.) I cannot strike down the widely accepted rule allowing jurisdiction over a nonresident served in the forum State. There has been no showing that this rule is so arbitrary and lacking in common sense as to violate due process in every case. The historical pedigree of this practice provides strong support for its continued validity.

Concurrence (Brennan, J.) While I concur in the judgment, I disagree with relying solely on historical pedigree. An independent inquiry into the fairness of the prevailing in-state service rule is necessary. We must consider factors such as the defendant's reasonable expectation of being subject to suit, benefits received from the forum state, and potential burdens on the defendant. This approach ensures that our jurisdiction rules align with modern notions of due process and fairness.

Concurrence (Stevens, J.) The combination of historical evidence, considerations of fairness, and common sense demonstrates that this is an easy case to decide in favor of jurisdiction. While I agree with the outcome, I believe it is important to consider multiple factors beyond just historical practice when determining the validity of jurisdictional rules. This approach ensures our legal system remains adaptable to changing circumstances while respecting established traditions.