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
There are 575 out‑of‑State plaintiffs from 33 states involved in the litigation.
According to Neal K. Katyal, the California Supreme Court previously ruled that plaintiffs who were not prescribed the drug in California, did not take it in California, and had no other connection to California could still sue there.
The petitioner argues that this California rule would distribute the burden of defending mass‑tort claims in an uneven way.
The California court is providing a forum to adjudicate a claim about the lawfulness of BMS’s design, manufacturing and distribution of the drug Plavix, activities that occurred in New Jersey, not California.
Background and question before the Court
The case concerns whether California courts have jurisdiction over out‑of‑state plaintiffs in a mass‑tort action involving the drug Plavix, which was designed, manufactured and distributed outside California.
Justice Kennedy asked whether a judgment in California would preclude claims in other states (issue preclusion).
Justices raised additional questions about due‑process.
- [1] 5c3c94eb5ac3d94ac7d5-r1-683eb00c0f04c480.pdf, pp. 3–4
- [2] 5c3c94eb5ac3d94ac7d5-r1-683eb00c0f04c480.pdf, p. 40
- [3] 5c3c94eb5ac3d94ac7d5-r1-683eb00c0f04c480.pdf, p. 8
- [4] 5c3c94eb5ac3d94ac7d5-r1-683eb00c0f04c480.pdf, p. 38
- [5] 5c3c94eb5ac3d94ac7d5-r1-683eb00c0f04c480.pdf, p. 39
- [6] 5c3c94eb5ac3d94ac7d5-r1-683eb00c0f04c480.pdf, p. 24
What each side argues
Petitioner (Bristol‑Myers Squibb Company) Position
According to Mr. Goldstein, the petitioner argues that the special federalism interest of the home state or the state of manufacturing should not dictate jurisdiction.
According to Mr. Goldstein, the petitioner emphasizes that non‑mutual offensive collateral estoppel is a major issue because the claims share identical legal theories and operative facts.
Respondent (Superior Court of California) Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kennedy asked whether a California judgment would preclude claims in other states (issue preclusion).
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg referenced a hypothetical involving the Alderson Reporting Company.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor noted an amicus brief discussing criminal laws under the due‑process theory.
According to Justice Gorsuch, justice Gorsuch wondered whether the Court was collapsing two separate due‑process inquiries—purposeful availment and fundamental fairness—into a single test.
Justice Kagan asked what would happen doctrinally to the first test and whether it still has bite.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy inquired whether the case should be heard in state court or the Southern District.
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan suggested that the case might involve zero California plaintiffs if the contacts are truly nationwide.
Justice Gorsuch asked, “What’s left?” indicating remaining unresolved issues.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer questioned why he was present concerning a party named Smith, who is not a citizen of the state.
- [1] 5c3c94eb5ac3d94ac7d5-r1-683eb00c0f04c480.pdf, p. 8
- [2] 5c3c94eb5ac3d94ac7d5-r1-683eb00c0f04c480.pdf, p. 20
- [3] 5c3c94eb5ac3d94ac7d5-r1-683eb00c0f04c480.pdf, p. 24
- [4] 5c3c94eb5ac3d94ac7d5-r1-683eb00c0f04c480.pdf, p. 38
- [5] 5c3c94eb5ac3d94ac7d5-r1-683eb00c0f04c480.pdf, p. 39
- [6] 5c3c94eb5ac3d94ac7d5-r1-683eb00c0f04c480.pdf, p. 44
- [7] 5c3c94eb5ac3d94ac7d5-r1-683eb00c0f04c480.pdf, p. 50
- [8] 5c3c94eb5ac3d94ac7d5-r1-683eb00c0f04c480.pdf, p. 53
- [9] 5c3c94eb5ac3d94ac7d5-r1-683eb00c0f04c480.pdf, p. 56
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Predictability of jurisdictional rules is critically important for litigants and courts.
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.
- 5c3c94eb5ac3d94ac7d5-r1-683eb00c0f04c480.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.