On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the case of CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., ruling that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not require plaintiffs to demonstrate “minimum contacts” with the United States to establish personal jurisdiction over a foreign state defendant. The Court clarified that personal jurisdiction under FSIA exists when “an immunity exception applies and service is proper.” This decision overturned the Ninth Circuit’s previous ruling and aligned it with other circuits.
The Supreme Court chose not to address three key issues raised by Antrix: whether the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires minimum contacts for federal court jurisdiction over a foreign state; if FSIA’s arbitration exception applies only to agreements concerning commerce within or with the U.S.; and whether this case should be dismissed under forum non conveniens due to its Indian context. These matters were remanded for further consideration by the Ninth Circuit.
Plaintiffs involved in litigation against foreign states should note that while minimum contacts are not required by FSIA, they may still be mandated by constitutional due process protections, pending future decisions by the Ninth Circuit. If these protections are extended, plaintiffs might need to show minimum contacts between foreign state-owned corporations and the U.S. Additionally, if Antrix’s arguments regarding FSIA’s arbitration exception or forum non conveniens prevail, it could pose challenges for confirming and enforcing arbitration awards against foreign states in U.S. courts.
The background of this case involves Devas Multimedia Private Ltd., an Indian corporation seeking to enforce a $562.5 million arbitration award against Antrix Corp., an entity owned by the Indian government, following a contract dispute over satellite network construction.
Initially, a district court confirmed jurisdiction over Antrix based on FSIA’s long-arm provision requirements being met—specifically an applicable immunity exception and proper service—and ruled out any need for minimum contacts analysis as per Fifth Amendment rights. However, upon appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed this decision citing International Shoe precedent on minimum contacts.
The Supreme Court concluded that FSIA does not inherently include a minimum-contacts requirement based on its text and structure but left open constitutional questions regarding due process requirements for establishing personal jurisdiction over foreign entities.
This ruling highlights several considerations for parties engaged in litigation involving foreign states or contemplating arbitration agreements with such entities under U.S. law:
1. Personal jurisdiction is established once an immunity exception is met and service is properly made.
2. The requirement of “minimum contacts” as per International Shoe cases is not mandated under FSIA.
3. The potential application of Fifth Amendment protections remains unresolved pending further judicial review.
4. The interpretation of FSIA’s arbitration exceptions may impact enforcement of international arbitral awards within U.S jurisdictions.
In summary, while confirming FSIA’s current stance on personal jurisdiction without requiring additional contact evidence beyond statutory exemptions and service provisions, broader constitutional implications remain subject to ongoing legal discourse and interpretation.