The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous decision in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., No. 23-1201 (June 5, 2025), clarifying that the “minimum contacts” requirement is not necessary to establish personal jurisdiction over foreign states under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA). The opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, removes a significant hurdle in the Ninth Circuit to enforcing arbitration awards against foreign states, aligning that circuit with the prevailing approach in other jurisdictions.
The case arose from the untimely termination of a satellite services contract between Devas and Antrix, an Indian state-owned company. A tribunal found Antrix liable and awarded Devas over half a billion dollars in damages. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington confirmed the award and entered a $1.29 billion judgment. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court had no personal jurisdiction over Antrix because the company lacked “minimum contacts” with the United States. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that the FSIA’s statutory framework necessitated a showing of minimum contacts, as traditionally required under the Fifth Amendment.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Ninth Circuit’s approach, holding that the FSIA’s statutory requirements alone determine personal jurisdiction over foreign states. Nothing in the FSIA incorporates a separate “minimum contacts” analysis.
The Supreme Court’s holding reinforces the supremacy of FSIA’s plain language and brings the Ninth Circuit in line with other courts that have addressed the issue. But Devas does not spell the end of “minimum contacts” in FSIA enforcement actions. The Court expresslyleft open the question of whether the Fifth Amendment independently demands a showing of “minimum contacts.”
The Court also left open alternative defenses to confirmation of arbitral awards. These include whether the claims genuinely fall within the FSIA arbitration exception and whether the suit should be dismissed under forum non conveniens.
The takeaway from Devas is simple. The plain language of the FSIA does all the jurisdictional work under the statute. If a FSIA exception to immunity applies and service is proper, federal courts can hear a case against a sovereign without an extra showing of minimum contacts. This removes at least one obstacle to enforcement of arbitration awards against foreign states.
