In our last “Year in Review” issue covering developments in 2020, we examined opinions from three U.S. Courts of Appeals—the Fifth, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits—concerning the hotly contested issue of whether (and how) the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), applies to federal class actions. While that issue continues to percolate in appellate courts—as evidenced, most notably, by the Ninth Circuit decision discussed below—this year it took a backseat to another issue that had splintered lower courts: namely, what standard must courts apply to the specific jurisdiction requirement that a plaintiff’s claims “arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts” with the forum? The Supreme Court’s decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District rejected the approach adopted by several circuits requiring that there be a causal connection between a defendant’s in-state activities and a plaintiff’s claims.

While the plaintiffs’ bar heralded Ford as pushing back on recent Supreme Court jurisprudence that had largely facilitated personal jurisdiction challenges, it remains to be seen whether Ford will be interpreted broadly or largely confined to its unique facts. At a minimum, as evidenced by one illustrative case discussed below, the Court’s opinion has led to a degree of judicial consternation, with some lower courts questioning whether the more nebulous “relatedness” test may, in practice, “erode the distinction between general and specific jurisdiction.” Such fears may prove exaggerated, however, as the Supreme Court clarified in Ford that Bristol-Myers Squibb—the case that rejected California’s “sliding-scale” conflation of general and specific jurisdiction—remained good law.