Plain-English summary
Court rules plaintiffs need not prove minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under FSIA
In CC/Devas v. Antrix, the Court unanimously held that plaintiffs suing foreign states under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) do not have to separately prove traditional minimum contacts for courts to exercise personal jurisdiction. The decision reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case.
Why this matters
The ruling clarifies who bears the burden to show that U.S. courts can hear cases involving foreign states. By holding that the FSIA’s statutory framework—when it permits suit—controls personal jurisdiction, the decision makes it easier for plaintiffs to sue foreign states in U.S. courts when the FSIA’s exceptions apply. That affects international commercial litigation and disputes involving state-owned entities, and it reduces an additional constitutional hurdle plaintiffs previously had to overcome.
Who may feel it
- Private companies suing foreign states or state-owned enterprises in U.S. courts
- Foreign governments and state-owned entities defending suits in U.S. courts
- U.S. federal courts handling FSIA cases
- Businesses involved in international contracts or commercial transactions
Key questions
- Does the constitutional minimum-contacts test apply in addition to the FSIA’s statutory rules when determining personal jurisdiction over a foreign state?