Abstract
This Article explores the values underpinning judicial decision-making in the constitutional domains of personal and legislative jurisdiction. It begins with a brief examination of value theory, emphasizing how intrinsic and teleological values shape legal frameworks and judicial outcomes. The analysis reveals that traditional jurisdictional doctrines have historically prioritized sovereignty and federalism, balancing these state-centric concerns with the individual fairness protections afforded by the Due Process Clauses. Through a detailed review of recent Supreme Court cases, the Article highlights a jurisprudential shift toward integrating additional values such as international comity, access to justice, and the mitigation of forum shopping. The Article comments on the Supreme Court’s teleological focus on sovereignty and fairness, arguing that jurisdictional analyses should instead prioritize procedural justice as a unifying principle. Procedural justice, the Article contends, reconciles competing values by safeguarding litigants’ interests while fostering predictability and reducing inequities in jurisdictional practices. The Article concludes by focusing on a forum shopping-centered approach to jurisdictional analysis, proposing that courts explicitly evaluate the presence of forum shopping in both personal and legislative jurisdiction cases. Such an approach would better balance fairness to defendants with plaintiffs’ access to justice, advancing a more coherent and adaptable doctrine that aligns with modern litigation realities.
Recommended Citation
Scott R. Bauries,
Jurisdictional Values,
58 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 35
(2025).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol58/iss1/2
