Are foreign subsidiaries of a United States parent corporation subject to general personal jurisdiction in a state court, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, on claims unrelated to any activity of the subsidiaries in the forum state, merely because some of their tires reached the state through the stream of commerce?

Two 13-year-old boys from North Carolina died in a 2004 bus accident outside Paris, France. Their parents, North Carolina residents, filed a wrongful-death suit in North Carolina state court as administrators of the boys' estates, attributing the accident to a tire that failed when its plies separated. They named as defendants Goodyear USA, an Ohio corporation, and three of its indirect subsidiaries organized and operating in Luxembourg, Turkey, and France. The tire at issue was manufactured in Turkey by Goodyear Turkey.

The foreign subsidiaries manufacture tires primarily for European and Asian markets, and those tires differ in size and construction from tires ordinarily sold in the United States. The subsidiaries are not registered to do business in North Carolina, have no place of business, employees, or bank accounts there, do not design, manufacture, or advertise products there, and do not solicit business or sell or ship tires to North Carolina customers. A small percentage of their tires, tens of thousands out of tens of millions manufactured between 2004 and 2007, were distributed in North Carolina by other Goodyear USA affiliates, typically as custom-ordered tires for specialized vehicles. The type of tire involved in the accident was never distributed in North Carolina. Goodyear USA did not contest jurisdiction, but the subsidiaries did.

The parents filed suit in the Superior Court of Onslow County, North Carolina. The foreign subsidiaries moved to dismiss the claims against them for want of personal jurisdiction, and the trial court denied the motion. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, acknowledging that specific jurisdiction was lacking but concluding that North Carolina courts had general jurisdiction because the subsidiaries had placed their tires in the stream of interstate commerce without limiting their sale in North Carolina. The North Carolina Supreme Court denied discretionary review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the general jurisdiction asserted over the subsidiaries was consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(Ginsburg, J.)

No. The foreign subsidiaries were not subject to general jurisdiction in North Carolina on claims unrelated to their activities in the state. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause sets the outer boundaries of a state court's authority over a defendant. Under International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), a state may exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant with minimum contacts such that the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Jurisdiction is either specific or general. Specific jurisdiction depends on an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, such as an in-state activity or occurrence. General jurisdiction permits a court to hear any claim against a defendant whose affiliations with the state are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home there. For a corporation, the paradigm forums are its place of incorporation and principal place of business. Because the accident and the manufacture and sale of the tire all occurred abroad, specific jurisdiction was unavailable, as the North Carolina Court of Appeals acknowledged.

The stream-of-commerce theory relates to specific jurisdiction in products liability actions, where a product placed in commerce outside the forum causes harm inside the forum. The flow of a manufacturer's products into the forum may bolster an affiliation germane to specific jurisdiction, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980), but it does not establish general jurisdiction. Continuous activity of some sorts within a state is not enough to support suit on matters unrelated to that activity.

Measured against Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952), where the Philippine corporation's wartime business was run from Ohio, and Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984), where purchases and training trips in Texas were insufficient, the subsidiaries' sporadic sales through intermediaries are far too attenuated. They are in no sense at home in North Carolina. Respondents' broad view would make any substantial manufacturer amenable to suit on any claim wherever its products are distributed. North Carolina's interest in providing a forum for its citizens does not supply general jurisdiction. Respondents' belated single-enterprise theory, which urged piercing the corporate veil for jurisdictional purposes, was forfeited because it was not raised below. The judgment is reversed.