Supreme Court Clarifies Foreign State Jurisdiction Under FSIA

White & Case reports that on June 5, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., clarifying how United States courts exercise personal jurisdiction over foreign states under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

The Court held that when a court has subject-matter jurisdiction and proper service of process under the FSIA, no further showing, such as proof of “minimum suit-related contacts,” is necessary to establish personal jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign.

The FSIA, enacted in 1976, governs when and how foreign states can be sued in US courts. While it presumes immunity for sovereign acts, it allows exceptions, such as for commercial activities with a US connection, or to enforce certain international arbitration awards.

Crucially, the FSIA ties subject-matter and personal jurisdiction to those immunity exceptions, stating that courts have jurisdiction when a valid exception applies and service of process is proper.

In this case, an arbitration panel awarded damages to Devas after finding that Antrix Corp., an Indian state-owned company, had breached a satellite leasing contract.

A US district court confirmed the award and treated Antrix as equivalent to the Indian government.

The Ninth Circuit reversed, ruling that personal jurisdiction also required “minimum suit-related contacts” under constitutional due process principles, which Antrix lacked.

The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that FSIA does not impose such a requirement. The ruling focused on statutory interpretation and found no support in the FSIA’s text or structure.

This decision streamlines FSIA litigation by clarifying that statutory compliance, specifically applying an immunity exception and ensuring proper service, is sufficient to assert jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns.

Questions remain about whether “minimum contacts” are constitutionally required for agencies and instrumentalities, a topic that may resurface in future litigation.