We blogged not too long ago about the two Supreme Court personal jurisdiction cases involving so-called “stream of commerce” jurisdiction.  In the Brown case we pointed out how the lower court had unprecedentedly applied the “stream of commerce” to a case involving general jurisdiction.

Well, today the Solicitor General filed an amicus curiae brief for the United States in Brown, taking the defense side.  Main points:  (1) “stream of commerce”/”purposeful availment” is solely a test of specific jurisdiction and it was error to use it in a general jurisdiction case, SG br. at 16-20; (2) the “continuous and substantial” test requires something close to a corporation maintaining its principal place of business in the state, SG br. at 22-23; (3) in determining general jurisdiction, the residence of the plaintiff (and thus a state’s interest in providing a forum to residents) is irrelevant.  SG br. at 29.

We don’t beat SCOTUSBlog often in their sweet spot, but this time Bexis got a tip due to his (tangential) involvement in the case.