Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1984

Calder v. Jones

465 U.S. 783 | 104 S. Ct. 1482 | 79 L. Ed. 2d 804 | 1984 U.S. LEXIS 41 | 52 U.S.L.W. 4349

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case establishes that a defendant who intentionally targets a forum resident with conduct expected to cause injury there may be sued in that forum, even if the defendant acted entirely from another State.

Background

Shirley Jones, a California entertainer whose television career was centered in California, sued the National Enquirer, its local distributor, reporter Judith South, and editor/president Robert Calder in California state court. Jones alleged libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on an Enquirer article that accused her of drinking so heavily that she could not meet her professional obligations.

The Enquirer was a Florida corporation that published a national weekly newspaper. Its California circulation was especially large: about 600,000 copies were sold there, nearly twice the circulation in any other State. South, a Florida resident, wrote the article largely from Florida using California sources and made phone calls to California, including a call to Jones's home. Calder, also a Florida resident, reviewed the article's subject, edited its final form, approved publication, and refused Jones's request for a retraction.

The California Superior Court quashed service on South and Calder. It believed their Florida conduct would ordinarily support jurisdiction because it caused injury in California, but concluded that First Amendment concerns and the risk of chilling journalists counseled against requiring the reporter and editor to defend the case in California. The California Court of Appeal reversed, holding that California could exercise jurisdiction because the defendants allegedly intended to cause tortious injury in California and that the First Amendment did not alter the jurisdictional analysis. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review the California Court of Appeal's decision by direct appeal.

Holding

No. A direct appeal did not lie, but the Court treated the jurisdictional statement as a petition for certiorari and granted review.

Reasoning

The California long-arm statute authorized jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the state and federal Constitutions. The court below therefore did not decide that a state statute was valid against a constitutional challenge; it decided only whether the Constitution permitted jurisdiction in these circumstances. Under Kulko, that posture did not support direct appellate jurisdiction.

The state appellate judgment was nevertheless final as to the federal jurisdictional question and was not subject to further review in the California courts. The Court could therefore treat the papers as a certiorari petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2103 and review the due process issue.

Issue #2

Whether California could exercise personal jurisdiction over Florida-based reporter South and editor Calder for an article allegedly injuring a California resident.

Holding

Yes. Their intentional conduct was expressly aimed at California, where the article's subject and the brunt of the alleged injury were located.

Reasoning

Due process permits personal jurisdiction when a defendant has minimum contacts with the forum such that suit accords with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The inquiry focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, not simply on the defendant's general connections with the State.

California was the focal point of both the article and the alleged harm. The story concerned the California activities of a California resident, drew on California sources, and targeted the professional reputation of an entertainer whose career was centered there. Jones also suffered the principal emotional and reputational injury in California.

This was not a case of untargeted negligence whose effects happened to reach California. South wrote and Calder edited and approved an article they knew could have a devastating effect on Jones, and they knew that the brunt of that effect would be felt in California, where she lived and worked and where the Enquirer had its largest circulation. They could therefore reasonably anticipate being sued there.

The defendants' status as employees did not shield them from suit. Although each defendant's contacts must be assessed individually and cannot merely be imputed from the employer's contacts, South and Calder were alleged primary participants in intentional wrongdoing directed at California. Their own acts supplied the necessary jurisdictional connection.

Issue #3

Whether First Amendment concerns require special protection against personal jurisdiction in a libel action beyond ordinary due process limits.

Holding

No. First Amendment concerns do not enter the personal-jurisdiction analysis in libel cases.

Reasoning

Adding First Amendment considerations to the minimum-contacts inquiry would needlessly complicate an already imprecise jurisdictional doctrine. The constitutional question remains whether the defendants deliberately created a sufficient connection with the forum in relation to the lawsuit.

The potential chilling effect of libel suits is already addressed through substantive First Amendment limits on defamation law, including the protections established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. Reintroducing those same concerns at the jurisdictional stage would double count them.

The Court had likewise declined to create additional procedural protections for libel defendants in other settings, such as by recognizing a First Amendment privilege against discovery into the editorial process. The same principle supported applying ordinary jurisdictional rules here.