Conspiracy jurisdiction is the theory that a defendant may be subject to personal jurisdiction in the forum state based on actions taken in furtherance of a conspiracy. What makes conspiracy jurisdiction unique is that as long as the acts of a co-conspirator were directed at the forum state, other members of the conspiracy may be subject to jurisdiction in the forum state, even if they otherwise lack their own direct contacts. While all personal jurisdiction issues are subject to the Due Process Clause, nowhere else is it so peculiarly implicated—and sometimes sidestepped—as when conspiracy forms the basis for personal jurisdiction. This still-developing gloss on specific jurisdiction has seen increasing but chaotic use in federal and state courts. As a result, and in contrast to the doctrine’s increasing use in litigation, scholarship is extremely sparse.

This Article is the first to offer a comprehensive look at conspiracy jurisdiction’s provenance and the complex current state of the law, analyzing the doctrine’s varied applications in light of recent Supreme Court authority. Our Article relies chiefly on Walden v. Fiore and Ford v. Montana, which influence but do not control the doctrine, to analyze the due process contours of conspiracy jurisdiction and how the doctrine can—and will—survive once the Supreme Court inevitably grants review to resolve an active and jagged circuit split.