A SCOTUS Case Of First Impression.

        Our next case, a US Supreme Court case, shows that the Court can still issue unanimous opinions in cases that require the application of statutes and that are not politically polarizing.

        In CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. 23-1201, 605 U.S. __ (6/5/25) (Justice Alito), Devas contracted with Antrix, an Indian government-owned satellite company, to lease satellite capacity. India later reclaimed the spectrum for government use, and Antrix terminated under a force majeure clause. An arbitral tribunal found Antrix liable, awarding $562.5 million plus interest. Devas sought confirmation of the award in U.S. federal court under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) arbitration exception. The District Court confirmed the award; the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that FSIA personal jurisdiction also requires a separate International Shoe “minimum contacts” showing.

        The Supreme Court unanimously held that under 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b), personal jurisdiction over a foreign state exists when (1) an FSIA immunity exception applies and (2) the defendant is properly served. There is no separate minimum-contacts requirement beyond the contacts embedded in the FSIA’s exceptions. The Ninth Circuit’s added requirement was contrary to the statute’s text and structure.

        COMMENT. This was the Court’s first direct ruling on whether FSIA’s personal-jurisdiction provision independently incorporates the constitutional “minimum contacts” standard.

        For Antrix, the jurisdictional test is: 1) Does the arbitration exception to immunity (§ 1605(a)(6)) apply? (Yes, because Antrix agreed to arbitrate and the award is covered by the New York Convention.) 2) Was service made under § 1608? (To be confirmed by the district court.) If both are satisfied, the federal court has personal jurisdiction.