what I thought about technology and the changes it brings and if hoses should change the minimum contacts rules? The Court ruled that a defendant's connection to the forum state must be established, and that the actions of the plaintiff in the forum state are insufficient to confer jurisdiction. Analysis and Personal Opinion: I agree with the Supreme Court's decision in Walden v. Fiore for several reasons grounded in civil litigation principles: Minimum Contacts Standard: The ruling reinforces the "minimum contacts" standard required for establishing personal jurisdiction. This principle, derived from International Shoe Co. v. Washington, states that due process requires that a defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum state to justify the court's jurisdiction. In the leading case of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, Kerley, P. (2019). Civil Litigation (8th ed.). In this case, the court found that Walden did not have any contact with Nevada; rather, his actions were directed toward the plaintiffs, who happened to reside in Nevada. This distinction is crucial because it maintains the integrity of jurisdictional requirements based on personal behavior rather than the circumstances of the plaintiffs. Due Process Considerations: The decision underscores the importance of protecting individuals from being haled into court in states with which they have no meaningful connection. This is a vital aspect of due process, founded on the notion that individuals