Key Takeaways
- Physical presence at the time of service is sufficient for personal jurisdiction: In Burnham v. Superior Court, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who is physically present in the state and served with process, regardless of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.
- Transient jurisdiction survives modern due process analysis: The Court held that the longstanding doctrine of transient jurisdiction—basing jurisdiction solely on physical presence—remains consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, even in an era of evolving fairness standards.
- The case underscores ongoing debates about fairness and modern jurisdiction: While the decision maintains traditional rules, it has sparked significant scholarly debate about whether transient jurisdiction aligns with contemporary notions of justice, especially as individuals become increasingly mobile.
Introduction
Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990), is a pivotal Supreme Court decision that explores the boundaries of personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case addressed whether a state court could assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who was physically present in the state at the time of service, even if the defendant’s contacts with the state were otherwise minimal or unrelated to the cause of action. This guide will provide a comprehensive overview of the case, its legal background, the Supreme Court’s decision, and the ongoing impact of Burnham on personal jurisdiction doctrine.
For those seeking the official Supreme Court opinion, it can be accessed here. Additional case briefs and analyses are available at Oyez and Casebriefs.
Background: The Facts and Procedural History
The Burnhams’ Marital Dispute
Dennis Burnham and Francie Burnham married in 1976 in West Virginia, later moving to New Jersey and having two children. Their marriage deteriorated, leading to a separation in July 1987. Francie moved to California with the children, while Dennis remained in New Jersey. Both parties filed for divorce—Francie in California and Dennis in New Jersey—resulting in a jurisdictional conflict.
Service of Process in California
While Dennis was visiting California on business and to see his children, Francie served him with divorce papers. Dennis, a New Jersey resident, had no significant ongoing contacts with California aside from this visit. He moved to quash service of process, arguing that California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he did not have sufficient “minimum contacts” with the state.
Lower Court Decisions
The California Superior Court denied Dennis’s motion to quash service. The California Court of Appeal upheld this decision, rejecting Dennis’s argument that his lack of substantial contacts with California precluded the exercise of personal jurisdiction. The appellate court reasoned that service while physically present in the state was sufficient under longstanding legal tradition.
Supreme Court Review
Dennis Burnham petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, presenting the central question: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit a state court to assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident, based solely on service of process while the individual is physically present in the state, regardless of minimum contacts?
Legal Background: Personal Jurisdiction and Due Process
The Evolution of Personal Jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to render decisions affecting the rights of specific persons. Traditionally, courts could assert jurisdiction over anyone found within their territorial boundaries. However, as the United States became more interconnected, the Supreme Court recognized that due process required certain “minimum contacts” between a defendant and the forum state before jurisdiction could be fairly exercised.
The International Shoe Standard
The modern framework for personal jurisdiction was established in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945). The Court held that due process requires that a defendant have “minimum contacts” with the forum state such that maintaining the lawsuit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” This standard has since guided courts in determining when it is fair to subject an out-of-state defendant to a state’s jurisdiction.
Transient (Tag) Jurisdiction
Despite the International Shoe standard, a longstanding exception persisted: transient jurisdiction (also known as “tag” jurisdiction), which permits a state to assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who is physically present in the state and served with process. This doctrine, rooted in centuries-old common law, was at the heart of the dispute in Burnham.
The Supreme Court’s Decision in Burnham v. Superior Court
Plurality and Concurring Opinions
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the exercise of jurisdiction by California courts, but the Justices were divided on the rationale.
Justice Scalia’s Plurality Opinion
Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy, delivered the plurality opinion. He emphasized the historical pedigree of transient jurisdiction, noting that it had been an accepted practice since before the founding of the United States. According to the plurality, the Due Process Clause must be interpreted in light of this historical tradition. Scalia argued that because transient jurisdiction was deeply rooted in the common law and widely accepted at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, it could not now be deemed unconstitutional.
“The short of the matter is that jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define the due process standard of ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” — Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. at 619.
Justice Brennan’s Concurrence
Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall, Blackmun, and O’Connor, concurred in the judgment but offered a different rationale. Brennan agreed that service of process on a physically present nonresident was consistent with due process, but he emphasized the need to consider evolving standards of fairness. He argued that even under the International Shoe “minimum contacts” test, transient jurisdiction was generally fair because individuals entering a state could reasonably anticipate being subject to its laws.
Justice White’s Concurrence
Justice White concurred separately, agreeing with the result but expressing reservations about the plurality’s reliance solely on historical tradition.
The Holding
The Court held that the Due Process Clause does not prohibit a state from exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who is physically present in the state and served with process—even if the suit is unrelated to the individual’s activities in the state. The decision affirmed the continued vitality of transient jurisdiction as a constitutional basis for personal jurisdiction.
Analysis: The Reasoning and Its Implications
The Enduring Power of Tradition
Justice Scalia’s opinion is notable for its reliance on legal tradition. He rejected the notion that all exercises of personal jurisdiction must be evaluated under the International Shoe “minimum contacts” framework. Instead, he argued that practices with deep historical roots—like transient jurisdiction—are per se constitutional, unless and until they are shown to be fundamentally unfair.
Fairness and Modern Mobility
Justice Brennan’s concurrence acknowledged the realities of an increasingly mobile society. He reasoned that individuals traveling to another state should reasonably expect to be subject to service of process while present there. He further noted that procedural safeguards, such as forum non conveniens and state long-arm statutes, provide additional protections against unfairness.
Critiques and Counterarguments
Legal scholars have debated whether transient jurisdiction is truly consistent with modern due process principles. Critics argue that it can lead to arbitrary or unfair results, allowing plaintiffs to “ambush” defendants with process in states with little or no connection to the underlying dispute. Some have suggested that the International Shoe standard should apply universally, requiring courts to assess the fairness of jurisdiction in every case, regardless of physical presence.
Practical Effects
Following Burnham, courts have continued to recognize transient jurisdiction as a valid basis for personal jurisdiction. However, debates about its fairness and relevance in an era of global mobility continue to shape legal scholarship and, occasionally, lower court decisions.
Burnham’s Place in Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine
Affirming the Traditional Rule
Burnham stands as a reaffirmation of the traditional rule that physical presence alone is sufficient for personal jurisdiction. This principle remains a cornerstone of American civil procedure, even as other aspects of jurisdiction law have evolved.
Interaction with Minimum Contacts Analysis
While Burnham preserved transient jurisdiction, it did not overrule or diminish the importance of the International Shoe “minimum contacts” test for other bases of jurisdiction, such as long-arm statutes or cases involving out-of-state defendants with ongoing business or other connections to the forum state.
The Modern Landscape
Today, personal jurisdiction remains a complex and evolving area of law. Courts regularly grapple with questions about the reach of state power over nonresident defendants, especially in cases involving internet activity, multinational corporations, and cross-border disputes. Burnham serves as a reminder that some jurisdictional doctrines are deeply rooted in legal history, even as others adapt to new realities.
Criticism and Scholarly Debate
Arguments Against Transient Jurisdiction
Critics of the Burnham decision argue that transient jurisdiction is out of step with contemporary notions of fairness and due process. They point out that a person’s mere physical presence in a state—however brief or unrelated to the underlying dispute—may not provide a meaningful connection to justify the state’s exercise of power. This, they argue, can lead to forum shopping and procedural gamesmanship.
Defenses of the Doctrine
Proponents counter that transient jurisdiction is predictable, administrable, and consistent with longstanding legal tradition. They note that it provides clear rules for litigants and courts, and that procedural safeguards exist to prevent truly unfair outcomes.
The Ongoing Academic Conversation
Legal scholars continue to debate whether Burnham should be reconsidered in light of changing social and technological realities. Some suggest that the Court should eventually require all exercises of personal jurisdiction to satisfy the “minimum contacts” test, while others maintain that the clarity and tradition of transient jurisdiction serve important legal interests.
Burnham in Practice: What Lawyers and Litigants Need to Know
Practical Application
For attorneys and litigants, Burnham means that a person physically present in a state can be served with process and subjected to that state’s courts, even if they have no other connection to the state. This rule applies regardless of the nature of the lawsuit, provided that service is properly made.
Strategic Considerations
Lawyers should be aware of the potential for “tag” service when clients travel to other states. Plaintiffs may use this doctrine to obtain jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants, while defendants should consider the risks of travel to states where they may face litigation.
Limitations and Exceptions
While Burnham affirms the constitutionality of transient jurisdiction, certain exceptions and limitations may apply. For example, service obtained by fraud or deceit may be invalid, and courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction in cases where it would be manifestly unfair (e.g., under the doctrine of forum non conveniens).
Conclusion
Burnham v. Superior Court remains a foundational case in American civil procedure, affirming the principle that physical presence at the time of service is sufficient for personal jurisdiction. The decision underscores the enduring power of legal tradition, even as debates about fairness and due process continue to shape the law. For attorneys, understanding Burnham is essential for effective litigation strategy and client counseling.
For further research and advanced legal insights, attorneys are encouraged to visit Counsel Stack for comprehensive legal research tools and resources.
Disclaimer: This guide provides a general overview of Burnham v. Superior Court and is not a substitute for legal advice. The law is nuanced and fact-specific; consult a qualified attorney or conduct thorough legal research for advice on particular cases or jurisdictions.
