1. Why is due process relevant to the outcome of this case?

2. What is the practical implication of this decision? Does it mean that Clemens cannot bring suit for defamation in any court?

In the summer of 2007, federal agents contacted Brian McNamee in connection with a federal investigation into the illegal manufacture and sale of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports. McNamee was an athletic trainer who had worked for both the Toronto Blue Jays and the New York Yankees baseball clubs. After authorities convinced McNamee that they had sufficient evidence to convict him for injecting athletes with anabolic steroids, McNamee agreed to cooperate with investigators in exchange for immunity from prosecution. During an inter-view with investigators, McNamee admitted that he had administered steroids to all-star pitcher Roger Clemens in both Toronto and New York. McNamee repeated this allegation to Major League Baseball investigators and to a reporter during an interview with Sports Illustrated.In 2008, Clemens, a citizen of Texas, filed a defamation suit against McNamee, a citizen of New York, in federal court based on diversity of citizenship. The trial court dismissed the complaint due to lack of personal jurisdiction over McNamee since his alleged defamatory statements were made outside Texas. Clemens appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the trial court’s ruling in favor of McNamee and affirmed the dismissal of Clemens’s defamation complaint. The court rejected Clemens’s contention that jurisdiction was proper in a Texas court because he suffered harm from the defamation in Texas. The court analyzed McNamee’s contacts with Texas in the context of the defamation claim and concluded that McNamee did not have sufficient minimum contacts as required by the long-arm statute and due process. The court held that to support personal jurisdiction in a defamation claim, the forum must be the “focal point” of the story. Although the court acknowledged that the defamation may cause dis-tress and damage to Clemens’s reputation in Texas, it concluded that the alleged defamatory statement was inadequately directed to Texas to satisfy the minimum-contacts requirement.

Minimal Contacts and Injurious Effect  “In support of jurisdiction, Clemens points to the harm he suffered in Texas and to McNamee’s knowledge of the likelihood of such damage in the forum. Yet under [previous case law], Clemens has not made a prima facie showing that McNamee made statements in which Texas was the focal point: the statements did not concern activity in Texas; nor were they made in Texas or directed to Texas residents any more than residents of any state. As such, the district court did not err in dismissing Clemens’ suit for lack of personal jurisdiction over McNamee.”