|
On August 19, 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its 5-2 decision in E.T. v. The Boys and Girls Club of Hudson County (A-69-24), affirming the Appellate Division’s reversal of the trial court and holding that New Jersey courts cannot exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the Boys and Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) in child sexual abuse claims arising from abuse by a part-time counselor at its Hudson County member club. The plaintiffs’ claims against the national organization rested on BGCA’s alleged failure to promulgate child-safety policies. Writing for the majority, Justice Wainer Apter concluded that BGCA’s contacts with New Jersey through branding requirements, programming support, training, and receipt of membership dues did not create a sufficient jurisdictional nexus because plaintiffs’ tort claims did not “arise out of or relate to” those contacts with the forum state. The Court found that the national organizations’ omission, absent a duty to act, was not purposeful availment of any forum.
The Specific Jurisdiction Framework Applied to a National Nonprofit
The Court applied the canonical two-part test for specific jurisdiction: (1) the defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum, and (2) the plaintiff’s claims must “arise out of or relate to” that purposeful availment. The Court emphasized that purposeful availment requires “some act” affirmatively directed toward the forum state, and that, absent a duty to act, a nonresident’s failure to adopt policies or procedures does not constitute purposeful direction toward any particular state. Plaintiffs relied heavily on Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 592 U.S. 351 (2021), arguing that BGCA, like Ford, “systematically served a market” in New Jersey. The majority distinguished Ford on multiple grounds: BGCA is a nonprofit that sells no product in the state, operates no dealerships or offices, and placed no advertising in the forum state. The Court also drew on D.T. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 260 N.J. 27 (2025), reaffirming that New Jersey courts exercise personal jurisdiction to the outer limits of the Fourteenth Amendment and are therefore bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedent interpreting those limits.
The Revival Statute, the Dissent, and Constitutional Jurisdiction Limits
The 2019 amendment to the Child Sexual Abuse Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2a, revived plaintiffs’ otherwise time-barred claims. The dissent argued that New Jersey was the only forum where plaintiffs’ claims could be heard and that “fair play and substantial justice” therefore compelled jurisdiction. The majority rejected that reasoning, holding that a court may not weigh fairness considerations until the threshold of minimum contacts is satisfied. A revival statute can reopen a limitations period; it cannot enlarge the constitutional reach of New Jersey’s courts. The majority added that plaintiffs’ claims will still be heard in New Jersey—just not against BGCA.
Impact and Recommendations for Appellate Practitioners
Practitioners can draw several lessons from this case:
- Conduct targeted jurisdictional discovery. Ask the trial court to permit jurisdictional discovery early on, perhaps before even filing a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. Practitioners on both sides should approach jurisdictional discovery strategically—plaintiffs to elicit evidence of affirmative forum-directed conduct, and defendants to demonstrate that local affiliates operated autonomously.
- Document affiliate independence now. National organizations should document the independence of local affiliates (hiring authority, operational control, and separate governance) because the Court’s analysis turned on the absence of affirmative, forum-directed conduct by the national entity. The majority noted, for example, BGCA’s consolidated financial statements, which say that BGCA “does not exercise supervision, direction, or control” of its chartered local member clubs.
- Watch the dissent. Justice Hoffman’s dissent, joined by Justice Fasciale, would have applied Ford’s “relate to” standard more expansively, treating BGCA’s branding, safety-oriented membership requirements, and training as contacts sufficiently related to child-safety claims. The 5-2 split signals a live doctrinal fault line that future litigants before other state high courts may try to push the other way.
Conclusion
E.T. v. The Boys and Girls Club of Hudson County reinforces the constitutional boundaries of specific personal jurisdiction, holding that a national nonprofit’s support, branding, and policy framework directed at a local affiliate do not, without more, subject the national organization to suit in the affiliate’s home state for torts committed by local personnel. National organizations operating through separately incorporated local affiliates should revisit governance documentation and consider how current membership structures would fare under the Court’s framework. For further guidance on how this decision may affect your organization or pending litigation, please contact our Appellate Practice Group.
|
