Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court
141 S. Ct. 1017 · Decided March 25, 2021 · Supreme Court of the United States
At a glance
Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court was decided on March 25, 2021 unanimously (8–0). The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, jurisdiction over nonresidents” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
- CourtListener (Free Law Project) — opinion text
- Supreme Court of the United States — slip opinions, October Term 2020
- Supreme Court of the United States — docket 19-368
Case details
- Citations
- 141 S. Ct. 1017 · 209 L. Ed. 2d 225 · 2021 U.S. LEXIS 1610
- Docket number
- 19-368
- Decided
- March 25, 2021
- Argued
- October 7, 2020
- Court era
- Roberts Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 8–0 (unanimous)
- Majority opinion
- Elena Kagan
- Opinion assigned by
- John G. Roberts Jr.
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, jurisdiction over nonresidents
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Special concurrence | |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Majority | |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Sonia Sotomayor | Majority | |
| Justice Elena Kagan | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Neil M. Gorsuch | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh | Majority |
Did not participate: Amy Coney Barrett.
Full case caption
Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court
SCDB identifiers: case 2020-005, docket 2020-005-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, jurisdiction over nonresidents”
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Ca.
- BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell
- Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization
- Walden v. Fiore
- Daimlerchrysler Ag v. Bauman
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Edgar D. Brown
Cases on the same legal provision: Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- June Medical Services LLC v. RussoLaw held unconstitutional
- Kahler v. Kansas
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health OrganizationAltered precedent
- North Carolina Department of Revenue v. the Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family TrustLaw held unconstitutional
- Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
- Andrew v. White
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Cedar Point Nursery v. HassidLaw held unconstitutional
- Pakdel v. City and County of San FranciscoLaw held unconstitutional
- Lombardo v. St. Louis
- Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error