Conspiracy Jurisdiction and the Limits of Personal Jurisdiction: Shook v. Wilson

Introduction

Shook v. Wilson, decided April 10, 2025 by the Supreme Court of New Mexico, clarifies when a state may assert specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant based on that defendant’s participation in a civil conspiracy. The petitioners, three national law firms—Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP; Covington & Burling LLP; and Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP—asked the Court to strike down “conspiracy jurisdiction” as violative of due process. The underlying cases involved New Mexico residents who allege that major tobacco interests and these law firms conspired to misrepresent the dangers of smoking. The core question presented: Can New Mexico courts hale into their jurisdiction nonresident co-conspirators whose only contacts with the state arise from a conspiracy they joined?

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that “conspiracy jurisdiction” is constitutional so long as it focuses on the defendant’s own conduct—namely, knowingly joining a civil conspiracy targeted at New Mexico. Under this refined test, a plaintiff must show by specific, prima facie facts that:

The defendant actively and voluntarily joined a civil conspiracy;
The defendant knew that one or more co-conspirators would commit acts in New Mexico or direct acts at New Mexico in furtherance of the conspiracy; and
Those in-state or forum-targeted acts created “minimum contacts” sufficient to satisfy due process.

Applying this standard, the Court concluded Plaintiffs had failed to make the required showing against the three law firms. The contrary evidence—occasional references in newsletters or regulatory updates—did not establish knowledge of wrongful in-state acts or purposeful targeting of New Mexico. The firms were therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945): Established the “minimum contacts” test for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause.
Chavez v. Bridgestone Americas (2022): Reaffirmed the distinction between general and specific personal jurisdiction in New Mexico.
Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014): Narrowed general jurisdiction to where a defendant is “essentially at home.”
Walden v. Fiore (2014): Emphasized that specific jurisdiction must rest on the defendant’s own contacts with the forum, not on the unilateral activity of others.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (2017): Held that specific jurisdiction extends only to claims arising out of or related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.
Santa Fe Technologies v. Argus Networks (2002, NM Court of Appeals): First New Mexico appellate case to recognize conspiracy jurisdiction, requiring an “appropriately limited” approach.
Calder v. Jones (1984): Confirmed that intentional torts directed at the forum state can give rise to specific jurisdiction.

Legal Reasoning

The Court began with the bedrock that due process permits specific jurisdiction only when a nonresident defendant has purposefully availed itself of the forum’s laws by its own deliberate conduct. Mere association with co-defendants or knowledge of third-party acts is insufficient. Recognizing the close tie between conspiracy and agency principles, the Court endorsed a refined “conspiracy jurisdiction” that imputes a co-conspirator’s targeted in-state acts to a nonresident only if the nonresident:

Voluntarily joined the conspiracy;
Actually knew of specific wrongful acts that co-conspirators would carry out in or directed at New Mexico; and
Foreseeably subjected itself to suit here by that knowledge and agreement.

This approach avoids attributing random or fortuitous in-state contacts to a defendant simply because of a loose association. It also hews to Walden’s warning that jurisdiction must rest on the defendant’s own nexus to the forum, not the unilateral activities of others. At the same time, it recognizes that conspiracies, like agency relationships, may confer vicarious liability.

Impact

Shook v. Wilson will shape future personal-jurisdiction disputes in New Mexico—and perhaps beyond—by demanding a rigorous, defendant-focused inquiry in cases alleging conspiracy jurisdiction. Courts will now require plaintiffs to:

Allege and, on challenge, demonstrate specific facts showing the defendant’s knowledge and intent to reach into the forum through co-conspirators;
Produce evidence of actual in-state or forum-targeted overt acts;
Discard arguments based on generalized newsletters or nationwide campaigns without a clear, forum-directed component.

This decision balances plaintiffs’ interest in convenient forums against defendants’ due process rights and promotes uniformity by aligning New Mexico law with federal due-process precedents.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Personal Jurisdiction – A court’s power to render a judgment binding on a particular defendant. It requires either general jurisdiction (defendant is “at home” in the forum) or specific jurisdiction (claim arises from defendant’s forum contacts).
Minimum Contacts – The defendant must have such ties to the forum that maintaining a suit does not “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Purposeful Availment – A defendant’s deliberate, voluntary connection with the forum (for example, targeting its laws or markets) rather than random or fortuitous contacts.
Specific Personal Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction limited to claims that arise out of or relate to the defendant’s forum contacts.
Conspiracy Jurisdiction – A subset of specific jurisdiction: it imputes to a nonresident conspirator the forum contacts made by a co-conspirator, but only if the nonresident knowingly joined and intended to further a conspiracy targeted at the forum.
Agency Analogy – Conspirators are treated like agents of each other for jurisdictional purposes, but without requiring the control element needed for respondeat superior liability.

Conclusion

Shook v. Wilson confirms that New Mexico may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident conspirators, provided plaintiffs show with particularity that each defendant actively joined a conspiracy, knew it would be carried out in or directed at New Mexico, and thus could foresee being haled into court here. Conspiracy jurisdiction survives but is tightly cabined: it rests on the defendant’s own purposeful conduct, not the mere existence of a conspiracy or the acts of third parties. This decision safeguards due process while preserving an avenue for plaintiffs harmed by out-of-state conspiracies that reach into New Mexico.