The second type is Personal Jurisdiction. This refers to the court’s power over the specific parties involved in the lawsuit, particularly the defendant. For a court’s judgment to be binding, it must have authority over the person or entity being sued. This is typically established if the defendant has sufficient “minimum contacts” with the geographic area where the court is located (the “forum”). This means the defendant must have purposefully availed themselves of the benefits of that location. For example, a court in one state generally has personal jurisdiction over a company that is headquartered there, regularly conducts business there, or caused an injury there. This principle prevents a plaintiff from suing a defendant in a random, inconvenient court on the other side of the country where the defendant has no connections.

A third type of jurisdiction, Territorial Jurisdiction, is related to personal jurisdiction and defines the geographical boundaries of a court’s power. A city court’s authority ends at the city limits, while a national supreme court’s jurisdiction covers the entire country. In our increasingly digital world, these geographical boundaries are becoming more complex. A key legal question in 2025 is how to apply traditional jurisdictional rules to disputes that arise entirely online, involving parties from different countries.