U.S. Supreme Court Holds that the FSIA Does Not Require Proof of “Minimum Contacts” for a U.S. Court to Exercise Personal Jurisdiction Over a Foreign State
4 min read
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd.1 2 The Court clarified that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act permits a U.S. court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign state and its agencies or instrumentalities when the court has subject-matter jurisdiction and when service of process is proper; the Act does not require proof of "minimum contacts."
Legal Background
In 1976, Congress enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which codified the restrictive theory of foreign sovereign immunity—the idea that foreign states are generally immune in U.S. courts for their sovereign acts, but can be sued for their commercial, non-sovereign acts in certain circumstances. Under the FSIA, foreign states and their agencies or instrumentalities enjoy presumptive immunity from civil suits in the United States unless one of the immunity exceptions listed in the Act applies.3 The immunity exceptions permit suits, for example, for certain commercial activity by the foreign state with a U.S. nexus and for the enforcement against foreign states of certain international arbitration awards.4
The FSIA ties both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction to the exceptions. The FSIA grants district courts subject-matter jurisdiction over "any claim for relief in personam with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity" under the exceptions.5 And the FSIA provides for personal jurisdiction as to every claim subject to an immunity exception if service of process is also proper under the Act.6
Relevant Procedural History
An arbitration panel awarded Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. damages after concluding that a corporation owned by the Republic of India, Antrix Corporation Ltd., breached its satellite-leasing agreement with Devas. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington confirmed the award and entered judgment against Antrix. The court also pierced the corporate veil between Antrix and India, holding that Antrix was effectively the foreign state itself.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court explained that personal jurisdiction under the FSIA requires not only application of an immunity exception and proper service on the foreign state, but also proof of minimum suit-related contacts with the United States under the due-process test first developed in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Finding that Antrix lacked sufficient suit-related contacts with the United States, the court concluded that the lawsuit must be dismissed.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The question before the Supreme Court was whether the FSIA requires proof of "minimum contacts" before a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign state. The Court held that the FSIA does not require such a showing because the "most natural reading of section 1330(b) is that personal jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign is 'automatic' whenever (1) 'an exception to sovereign immunity applies' and (2) 'service of process has been accomplished.'"7 The Court determined that this reading is consistent with the FSIA's text, which does not include "any reference to 'minimum contacts,'" and with the FSIA's structure, which strips immunity and grants jurisdiction whenever an immunity exception applies.8
Takeaways and What's Next
The Supreme Court left open the question whether the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution separately requires a showing of "minimum contacts" before a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign state or its agencies or instrumentalities. Several courts have held that, while the Due Process Clause does not require such a showing for personal jurisdiction over a foreign state, the Due Process Clause does require "minimum contacts" for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign state's agency or instrumentality.9 The issue could find its way to the Supreme Court in this case after remand or in other FSIA cases in the future.
1 White & Case LLP submitted a brief in support of Respondent Antrix on behalf of amicus curiae the Republic of India.
2 605 U.S. ___ (2025).
3 28 U.S.C. §§ 1604, 1605.
4 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1605, 1605A, 1605B.
5 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a).
6 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b).
7 Devas, slip op. at 8.
8 Devas, slip op. at 9-10.
9 See, e.g., Gater Assets Ltd. v. AO Moldovagaz, 2 F.4th 42, 49 (2d Cir. 2021) (holding that agencies and instrumentalities of foreign states are "persons" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, and, therefore, "receive protection from the exercise of personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause"); Price v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 294 F.3d 82, 95-100 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (holding that foreign states themselves are not "persons" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, and therefore a showing of minimum contacts with the forum is not required to exercise personal jurisdiction over them).
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
© 2025 White & Case LLP
