Burnham v. Superior Court is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that clarified the constitutional validity of exercising personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant who is served with process while physically present in a state.
The case is significant because it addressed the continued relevance of traditional principles of personal jurisdiction after the development of modern due process standards. Although all nine Justices agreed on the outcome, the Court did not reach a majority consensus on the reasoning, resulting in multiple opinions that reflected different approaches to due process analysis.
Background and Facts
Dennis Burnham and Frances Cecilia Burnham were married and lived together in New Jersey. The couple later agreed to divorce. Frances moved to California with their two children, while Dennis remained in New Jersey. Initially, the parties discussed delaying divorce proceedings in order to meet certain residency and separation requirements.
Before California’s six-month residency requirement was completed, Frances filed for divorce in a California Superior Court. Around the same time, Dennis traveled to California for an unrelated business purpose and to visit his children in the San Francisco Bay Area, where Frances resided.
While returning the children to Frances’s home, Dennis was personally served with a California court summons and a copy of the divorce petition. Service occurred while he was physically present in the state, though his visit was temporary and unrelated to the divorce proceedings.
Dennis later arranged for Frances to be served with divorce papers in New Jersey. Courts subsequently determined that the California action was first in time.
Dennis made a special appearance in the California court and filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that California lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he was not a resident and lacked sufficient connections with the state. The California Superior Court initially granted relief but later reversed its decision on reconsideration, relying on long-standing jurisdictional principles. The California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court both denied further relief.
Dennis then petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review. The Court granted certiorari to address whether transient jurisdiction remained valid under modern due process jurisprudence.
Procedural History
- California Superior Court denied the motion to quash service
- California Court of Appeal denied mandamus relief
- California Supreme Court denied review
- United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed jurisdiction
Legal Background
At common law, courts exercised personal jurisdiction over defendants who were physically present within the forum state and served with process there. This rule was recognized by the Supreme Court in Pennoyer v. Neff (1877).
Later decisions such as International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1946) and Shaffer v. Heitner (1977) emphasized that personal jurisdiction must comply with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,” particularly when defendants were not served within the forum state.
The question raised in Burnham v. Superior Court was whether these modern developments displaced the traditional rule allowing jurisdiction based solely on physical presence at the time of service.
Issue
Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state court from exercising personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant who was personally served with process while temporarily present in the forum state, in a lawsuit unrelated to the defendant’s activities in that state.
Burnham v. Superior Court Judgment
The Supreme Court held that a state court may constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant who is personally served with process while physically present in the state. Jurisdiction based on physical presence alone satisfies due process.
Rule of Law
Jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of the American legal system that define the due process standard.
Reasoning and Opinions in Burnham v. Superior Court
Although the Court unanimously agreed on the result, it issued multiple opinions explaining different rationales for upholding jurisdiction.
Justice Scalia’s Plurality Opinion
Justice Scalia authored the lead opinion, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy, and in part by Justice White. Justice Scalia framed the central question as whether due process forbids jurisdiction over a non-resident who was personally served while temporarily present in the forum state.
Justice Scalia relied heavily on historical practice. He emphasized that personal jurisdiction based on physical presence and service within the forum state was deeply rooted in American legal tradition at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. According to this view, a jurisdictional rule with such longstanding acceptance necessarily satisfies due process.
He distinguished cases like International Shoe and Shaffer, explaining that those decisions expanded jurisdiction beyond physical presence but did not eliminate traditional bases of jurisdiction. Justice Scalia rejected the idea that courts must re-evaluate historically accepted jurisdictional rules using modern fairness tests.
Justice Brennan’s Concurrence
Justice Brennan concurred in the judgment and was joined by Justices Marshall, Blackmun, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. He agreed that California could exercise jurisdiction over Dennis Burnham but rejected the notion that historical acceptance alone resolved the due process question.
Justice Brennan reasoned that all exercises of personal jurisdiction must be evaluated under contemporary notions of due process. He concluded that jurisdiction was fair because Dennis Burnham voluntarily entered California and thereby availed himself of the benefits and protections of its laws.
He also noted that modern transportation and communication reduce the burden of defending a lawsuit in another state and that doctrines such as forum non conveniens could address cases of genuine hardship.
Justice White’s Concurrence
Justice White concurred in part and in the judgment. He emphasized that jurisdiction based on personal service within the forum state had been so widely accepted that striking it down would be unwarranted. He found no basis to conclude that such jurisdiction was arbitrary or fundamentally unfair in violation of due process.
Justice Stevens’s Concurrence
Justice Stevens also concurred in the judgment but declined to join either the Scalia or Brennan opinions. He viewed the case as straightforward and suggested that both historical practice and considerations of fairness supported the outcome. He expressed concern that broader reasoning was unnecessary for resolving the case.
Conclusion
Burnham v. Superior Court stands as a key decision in US personal jurisdiction law. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld jurisdiction based on physical presence, while offering differing explanations rooted in history, fairness, and practical considerations. The case confirms that service of process within a state continues to provide a constitutionally valid basis for personal jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment.