Whether the Fifth Amendment imposes the same restrictions on personal jurisdiction by federal courts as the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on state courts

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has specifically left open the question of whether the Fifth Amendment imposes the same restrictions on the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a federal court [as the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on state courts],” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Sup. Ct., 137 8. Ct. 1773, 1783-84 (2017). It has also acknowledged that the “United States is a distinct sovereign [so that] a defendant may in principle be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States but not of any particular State.” J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 884 (2011) (plurality op.). This case provides an excellent vehicle to address this open issue in the context of death and injuries to U.S. Navy personnel when their ship was struck by a foreign container ship in the East China Sea. Two questions are presented: 1. Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires a foreign defendant to be at home — the test for state-court general jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment — when jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) is invoked, which would make that Rule a nullity. 2. Whether personal jurisdiction exists under Article III of the Constitution, which endows federal courts with admiralty jurisdiction, and the law of nations when a foreign ship collides with an American ship, in this instance an American warship, on the high seas.