Now that we have completed Personal Jurisdiction, some recent developments that might help in understanding how courts approach the analysis.
• Media Matters sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on a First Amendment claim, alleging a First Amendment violation from Paxton sending a "civil investigative demand" (essentially a subpoena) seeking documents related to Media Matters' negative reporting about Twitter (which I never will call X). Paxton challenged personal jurisdiction in the District of the District of Columbia (where MM and its reporter are located); the district court denied the motion. The decision is about the D.C. long-arm statute, but the court incorporates constitutional principles into its analysis. "Conducting business" under the statute means the same thing as "serve or seek to serve." There is some similarity between serve/seek and contract as a means of purposeful availment; contract requires a formal agreement, where seek may include (as it does here) the anticipated long-term connection between Paxton and MM as a result of the subpoen.
• For her court-observation assignment, Isabella watched the 3d DCA argument in Facebook v. Grind Hard Holdings, considering personal jurisdiction (under Florida's Long Arm and the 14th Amendment) over online contacts.
• This is a bit dated (from 2006) given the run of recent cases, but it is amazing:
