Final answer:
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Arkansas can have jurisdiction over Kiley K, a Hawaii resident, if the case involves federal law or a federal question, or if it falls under a specific jurisdictional statute that crosses state lines.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question at hand inquires how the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Arkansas can assert jurisdiction over Kiley K, who resides in Hawaii. The power of a federal court, such as a U.S. District Court, to hear a case relies on its jurisdiction, which not only pertains to geographical boundaries but also to subject matter jurisdiction.
According to Section 2 Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts have jurisdiction in several types of cases including those that involve federal law or disputes between residents of different states. Jurisdiction over a party can also cross state boundaries in certain circumstances such as when a federal question is involved or when a dispute falls under the scope of laws that grant national jurisdiction, like in cases related to the U.S. Court of International Trade.
Moreover, the today's federal court system has evolved over time, as indicated by the additional powers granted through acts of Congress, allowing district courts to hold jurisdiction over broader issues of federal law. Therefore, if the case against Kiley K involves a federal question, or falls into the categories that allow for jurisdiction across state lines, the Arkansas district court may rightfully hold jurisdiction.