The Personal (Jurisdiction) is Political

Abstract

Extraterritorial laws between states have long been debated, but less discussed are the implications of these extraterritorial theories on personal jurisdiction. As anti-abortion states continue to pass extraterritorial laws targeting abortion—bounty-hunter abortion laws—it becomes increasingly important to address the role personal jurisdiction will play in attempts to enforce these laws. Personal jurisdiction may serve as a useful roadblock to stop bounty-hunter lawsuits. This Note seeks to fill this gap in the literature by examining both the role personal jurisdiction will play in extraterritorial anti-abortion lawsuits and the fit between theories underlying personal jurisdiction and extraterritoriality. In this context, the governing state and federal precedents and the values underlying personal jurisdiction do not support exercise of personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants. Part I details states that have currently enacted bounty-hunter laws, the ongoing lawsuits related to these laws, and the issues these suits have presented for the basic requirements of personal jurisdiction. Part II lays out the menu of ways these cases might be handled, specifically by addressing the likely types of defendants and exploring how personal jurisdiction would—or, more aptly, would not—apply. Part III concludes by discussing theories underlying personal jurisdiction and how they support judges finding that bountyhunter lawsuits against out-of-state defendants should not proceed. I argue that both Supreme Court precedent and personal jurisdiction’s underlying normative values indicate that courts should not have personal jurisdiction over out-of-state abortion-suit defendants. Personal jurisdiction is one of the many procedural roadblocks—in addition to questions of substantive law—that will arise in civil enforcement mechanism lawsuits.