Whether purposeful availment suffices to establish specific personal jurisdiction, or whether purposeful direction is necessary

QUESTIONS PRESENTED For purposes of establishing specific personal jurisdiction, this Court has consistently held that defendants can be present in a forum so long as they either purposefully avail themselves of the privilege of doing business in that forum or purposefully direct their injurious conduct toward that forum. In this case, the Ninth Circuit construed a federal anti-trafficking statute to incorporate the test for presence from this Court’s specific jurisdiction case law—but then held that the statute could not be used to sue respondents in a U.S. court for their alleged role in human trafficking and forced labor. Even though respondents purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of doing business in the United States, the court of appeals held that they were not “present in the United States” because the harm to petitioners occurred overseas. The questions presented are: 1. Whether, in an intentional tort case, purposeful direction is necessary to establish the presence of an out-of-forum defendant, as the Ninth Circuit held in this case, or whether purposeful availment suffices, as the Second, Seventh, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits have held. 2. Whether, even if purposeful direction is the exclusive test for establishing that respondents were present in the United States, the Ninth Circuit erred by requiring that petitioners’ injuries have occurred in the United States.