Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson (respondents) sued former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent Anthony Walden for violating their Fourth Amendment rights, stemming from a DEA search and seizure conducted at an airport in Atlanta, Georgia. As a result of the search, Walden seized almost $97,000 in cash from respondents. Walton later helped draft an affidavit to show probable cause for forfeiture of the funds, which Walden forwarded to the US Attorney's Office in Georgia. Respondents alleged that the affidavit was false and misleading because Walden, among other things, omitted exculpatory information from the affidavit. In the end, no forfeiture complaint was filed, and the DEA eventually returned the cash to respondents, who resided in Nevada.

Respondents filed their suit in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, although Walden had no connection to Nevada. Walden moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted Walden's motion and dismissed the case, finding that the search and seizure in Georgia did not establish a basis to exercise personal jurisdiction in Nevada, even if Walden caused harm to respondents in Nevada while knowing they lived in Nevada. Respondents subsequently appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On appeal, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, and found that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Walden in Nevada was reasonable. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit concluded that:

The US Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether due process permitted a Nevada court to exercise jurisdiction over Walden.

The US Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, and found that a Nevada court could not properly exercise jurisdiction over Walden.

First, the Court discussed the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and reviewed the basic principles of specific jurisdiction, including the requirement that a nonresident defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum state, citing Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 26 U.S. 310 (1945). The Court noted that:

Based on these principles, the Court concluded that, "when viewed through the proper lens - whether the defendant's actions connected him to the forum," Walden lacked minimum contacts with Nevada, because:

The Court found that the Ninth Circuit improperly shifted the analytical focus from Walden's contacts with Nevada to his contacts with respondents, and improperly attributed respondents' forum connections to Walden. The Court then reiterated the "well-established principles" of personal jurisdiction that the proper focus of the minimum contacts inquiry in intentional tort cases is the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, and that it is the defendant who must create contacts with the forum state.

In the opinion's final footnote, the Court stated that this case did not raise any issue regarding torts committed via the Internet or other electronic means, or regarding how a defendant's virtual presence and conduct could translate into contacts with a particular state.

To avoid the time and expense of litigating a motion to dismiss, counsel should always determine before filing suit whether a defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the desired forum to allow the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. When preparing responsive pleadings, defense counsel should also be sure to raise the issue of personal jurisdiction where minimum contacts are in question. For more information on personal jurisdiction, see Practice Notes, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Initial Considerations: Does the Court Have Personal Jurisdiction Over the Defendant?, Responsive Pleadings: Counterclaims and Crossclaims: Personal Jurisdiction, and Motion to Dismiss: Overview: Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.