Facts
- Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson, professional gamblers with residences in Nevada and California, traveled with nearly $97,000 in cash.
- TSA agents in Puerto Rico found the cash and notified law enforcement; a DEA task force in Atlanta was alerted that Fiore and Gipson were flying through Atlanta to Las Vegas.
- In Atlanta, Anthony Walden, a Georgia officer serving as a deputized DEA agent, stopped and questioned them and seized the cash after a drug-sniffing dog did not alert.
- After Fiore and Gipson returned to Nevada, Walden allegedly drafted a false probable-cause affidavit in Georgia and sent it to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Georgia to support forfeiture.
- No forfeiture complaint was filed, and the money was returned.
- Fiore and Gipson filed a Bivens action in federal court in Nevada alleging Fourth Amendment violations based on the seizure and the allegedly false affidavit.
Issues
- Whether due process permits Nevada to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a Georgia defendant when all relevant conduct occurred in Georgia and the only asserted Nevada link is the plaintiffs’ Nevada connections and resulting injury there.
Decision
- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit.
- Nevada lacked specific personal jurisdiction over Walden because he created no jurisdictionally relevant contacts with Nevada.
- Walden’s alleged conduct—seizure of cash and preparation of the affidavit—occurred entirely in Georgia, and the plaintiffs’ Nevada connections could not supply the necessary forum link.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the absence of personal jurisdiction.
Legal Principles
- Specific personal jurisdiction must arise out of contacts the defendant himself creates with the forum State; the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum.
- The minimum-contacts inquiry examines the defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, not merely the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.
- Mere injury to a forum resident, without forum-directed conduct by the defendant, is insufficient to establish minimum contacts.
- An “effects” theory of jurisdiction requires conduct connecting the defendant to the forum State; foreseeability that a plaintiff will feel harm in the forum, by itself, does not satisfy due process.
Conclusion
The Court held that due process barred Nevada from exercising specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state officer whose relevant acts occurred in Georgia, because the plaintiffs’ Nevada residence and in-forum effects of an out-of-forum seizure did not constitute defendant-created contacts with Nevada.