Whether due process permits a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant based on the forum contacts of an alleged co-conspirator, even when the defendant did not direct, control, or supervise the activities of that alleged co-conspirator

QUESTION PRESENTED Before a court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-forum defendant, due process requires that at a minimum (i) the defendant of “[its] own choice” must have “purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State” and (ii) the plaintiffs claim “‘must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts’ with the forum.” Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1024-25 (2021) (citations omitted). Some courts, however, subject a defendant to specific jurisdiction whenever one of that defendant’s alleged co-conspirators is subject to specific jurisdiction, even if that defendant’s own conduct fails to meet those two requirements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit applied such “conspiracy jurisdiction” here to subject Petitioners to specific jurisdiction. Accordingly, the question presented is: Whether due process permits a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant based on the forum contacts of an alleged co-conspirator, even when the defendant did not direct, control, or supervise the activities of that alleged co-conspirator.