Whether traditional due process principles apply to the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over defendants based on their universally accessible website or mobile application

QUESTION PRESENTED For courts to exercise personal jurisdiction, due process requires that defendants have sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’ Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (cleaned up). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) does not water down those constitutional requirements. To the contrary, it expressly allows for personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants for federal claims in federal courts only if those defendants are not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction and exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the Constitution. This Court has yet to weigh in on how those constitutional requirements apply to jurisdiction based on either defendants’ internet contacts or Rule 4(k)(2), but appellate and district courts have—and have split on both questions. The questions presented are: 1. Whether traditional due process principles apply to the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over defendants based on their universally accessible website or mobile application. 2. Whether traditional due process principles apply to the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2).