1. This Court's decisions establish that a court cannot assert specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant "purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). An out-of-state defendant ordinarily satisfies that purposeful-availment requirement by "deliberately * * * engag[ing] in significant activities within [the] State" or "creat[ing] continuing obligations between himself and [its] residents." Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-476 (1985) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

In World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980), this Court indicated that a corporation may also satisfy the purposeful-availment requirement where it "delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State." Id. at 297-298. The Justices of this Court, however, have been unable to produce a majority opinion on the particular circumstances under which a defendant's placement of a product in the stream of commerce will give rise to specific jurisdiction. In Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987), four Justices concluded that "[a]dditional conduct" beyond placement of a product in the stream of commerce was necessary, id. at 112 (plurality opinion); four other Justices concluded that a "regular and anticipated flow of products from manufacture to distribution to retail sale" would suffice, id. at 117 (Brennan, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); and Justice Stevens concluded that "the volume, the value, and the hazardous character" of the product was relevant to the analysis, id. at 122 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). Twenty-five years later, the Court addressed the stream-of-commerce theory again in J. McIntyre Machinery, Limited v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011). The Court again produced no majority opinion, with Justice Kennedy writing an opinion for a four-justice plurality, id. at 877, and Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Alito, writing a separate opinion concurring only in the judgment, id. at 887.

In the absence of a clear rule from this Court, the federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort have reached conflicting results on how to apply the stream-of-commerce theory to foreign manufacturers that distribute their products in the United States through American distributors. Several courts have concluded that a regular flow of products made by a foreign manufacturer sent into the forum State by a domestic distributor constitutes purposeful availment. See, e.g., Ainsworth v. Moffett Engineering, Limited, 716 F.3d 174, 177-179 (5th Cir. 2013); State v. LG Electronics, Inc., 375 P.3d 1035, 1042 (Wash. 2016). Other courts have held that a foreign manufacturer must more purposefully direct its activities at the forum State. See, e.g., Hyundam Industrial Co. v. Swacina, No. 24-0207, 2025 WL 1717010, at *3

Whether a foreign manufacturer can be subject to specific personal jurisdiction in a state court based solely on the distribution of its products through an independent domestic distributor