In the case of Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 2020, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs from Minnesota and Montana who had filed lawsuits against Ford for injuries sustained in car accidents involving their vehicles. The court held that even though the specific cars involved were not manufactured or initially sold in these states, Ford's extensive business activities including advertising, selling and servicing similar models there was enough to establish jurisdiction over it. This ruling rejected Ford’s argument that a state could only exercise jurisdiction if its activities within the state had given rise to plaintiff’s claims i.e., if there was a causal link between its local conduct and those claims. Instead, it affirmed that so long as a company like Ford systematically served a market for its products in states such as Montana and Minnesota (which included identical versions of products causing injury), it could be sued there under product liability laws when one of those products causes injury.

In the dissenting opinion for Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, argued that the majority's decision expanded beyond precedent and blurred jurisdictional lines. They contended that a state court should only have jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation if it could show that its in-state activities directly caused the plaintiff’s claims. The justices disagreed with the majority's view of causation as too broad and inconsistent with due process principles. They expressed concern about potential consequences of this ruling on interstate commerce and federalism because it might encourage forum shopping or expose companies to litigation in any state where their products are sold regardless of whether they intentionally targeted those markets.