This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether New Jersey courts have personal jurisdiction over J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. based on the activities of its U.S. distributor.
Background and question before the Court
According to Arthur F. Fergenson, Esq., on behalf of Petitioner, petitioner argues it neither directed activity toward New Jersey residents nor knew of its distributor’s actions, so New Jersey lacks jurisdiction.
According to Justice Scalia, the Court asked whether the distributor was controlled by the defendant.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Arthur F. Fergenson, Esq., on behalf of Petitioner, j. McIntyre did not direct any activity at New Jersey residents, either itself or through its distributor, and had no awareness of the distributor’s actions; therefore New Jersey lacks adjudicative jurisdiction.
Respondent Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Scalia, when you say "its distributor," was this distributor at all controlled by the defendant?
According to Justice Sotomayor, you did travel to certain of the trade shows—
According to Justice Breyer, now, first, the word "distributor" hurts you, so I'm going to take that out…
According to Justice Alito, what difference does attending some trade shows in the United States make?
According to Justice KAGAN, isn't the point that he was selling by using large convention sites in the United States, expecting that people from other States would show up to those large convention sites?
According to Justice Sotomayor, do you sell outright to the American company? Do you ship a product and they pay you, or they only pay you when they receive the money from their customer?
- [1] 1e6c6c27afef77553ddf-r1-11f5071d15852440.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 1e6c6c27afef77553ddf-r1-11f5071d15852440.pdf, p. 21
- [3] 1e6c6c27afef77553ddf-r1-11f5071d15852440.pdf, p. 22
- [4] 1e6c6c27afef77553ddf-r1-11f5071d15852440.pdf, p. 37
- [5] 1e6c6c27afef77553ddf-r1-11f5071d15852440.pdf, p. 40
- [6] 1e6c6c27afef77553ddf-r1-11f5071d15852440.pdf, p. 60
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to States' amicus brief, ignorance of New Jersey law and lack of research before a nationwide marketing campaign should not allow the petitioner to avoid jurisdiction.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 1e6c6c27afef77553ddf-r1-11f5071d15852440.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.