CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.
Headline: FSIA ruling: Court ruled that plaintiffs can sue foreign government-owned companies in U.S. courts when a statutory immunity exception applies and service is proper, overturning Ninth Circuit’s extra 'minimum contacts' requirement.
Holding: Personal jurisdiction exists under the FSIA when an immunity exception applies and proper service is made; the FSIA does not require an extra minimum-contacts test.
- Allows plaintiffs to proceed when an FSIA exception applies and service is proper.
- Removes an extra minimum‑contacts hurdle for suing government-owned companies in U.S. courts.
- Sends the case back to lower courts to decide other defenses and enforcement questions.
Summary
Background
A private Indian company called Devas contracted with Antrix, a company owned and run for the Indian Government to provide satellite services. After the Indian Government reclaimed satellite capacity, Antrix ended the deal, Devas invoked arbitration, and an international tribunal awarded Devas $562.5 million. Devas then asked a U.S. court to confirm that award, and the District Court entered a $1.29 billion judgment. The Ninth Circuit reversed, saying U.S. courts also need to find traditional “minimum contacts” with the United States before asserting personal jurisdiction over a foreign state-owned company.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) requires a separate minimum-contacts test in addition to its own rules. The Court said no. Under the FSIA, personal jurisdiction exists when an immunity exception in the Act applies and the plaintiff has followed the Act’s special service rules. The Court explained that the Act’s exceptions already require varying degrees of connection to the United States, and the statute’s text ties immunity and jurisdiction together. Because the Ninth Circuit added an extra contacts requirement that the statute does not include, the Supreme Court reversed.
Real world impact
This decision means plaintiffs who meet an FSIA exception and properly serve a foreign state or its agency can proceed in U.S. courts without an additional minimum-contacts hurdle. The Court did not decide other defenses—like due-process limits, whether this case fits the arbitration exception, or forum non conveniens—so those issues return to the lower courts on remand.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?