“Automatic Personal Jurisdiction” under the FSIA:
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. & Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. (U.S. 2025)

I. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.¹ resolves a long-running split in the federal circuits over whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) silently preserves a third requirement—traditional “minimum contacts” under International Shoe Co. v. Washington—before a U.S. court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign state or its instrumentalities.

The litigation grew out of a 2005 satellite-lease agreement between Antrix Corporation Ltd.—the commercial arm of India’s space agency—and Devas Multimedia Private Ltd., an Indian startup backed by Mauritian investors. When India reclaimed its S-band spectrum and instructed Antrix to terminate the deal, Devas invoked arbitration, ultimately winning a $562.5 million award. Devas then sought confirmation of the award in the Western District of Washington. Although the district court confirmed the award and entered a $1.29 billion judgment, the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment, holding that Devas had failed to establish Antrix’s “minimum contacts” with the United States.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide a single question: Does §1330(b) of the FSIA require proof of minimum contacts in addition to (i) the applicability of an immunity exception and (ii) proper service? The Court answered no, pronouncing a new bright-line principle that, once a statutory immunity exception applies and service is effected under §1608, personal jurisdiction “shall exist.” The decision abolishes the Ninth Circuit’s extra-statutory gloss and cements an “automatic jurisdiction” model for foreign-state defendants.

II. Summary of the Judgment

• Holding: Under 28 U.S.C. §1330(b) personal jurisdiction over a foreign state is automatic when (1) a statutory immunity exception removes immunity and (2) service is accomplished under §1608. No additional showing of minimum contacts is required.
• Vote: 9–0 (Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court).
• Disposition: Judgment of the Ninth Circuit reversed and case remanded for further proceedings (potentially including questions of forum non conveniens, due-process objections, and the scope of the arbitration exception).

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) — the foundational “minimum contacts” case.
   Role: The Ninth Circuit applied International Shoe to foreign sovereigns; the Supreme Court rejected that extension, clarifying that International Shoe is satisfied only insofar as Congress’s own exceptions already embody sufficient contacts.
2. Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480 (1983) — stressed that FSIA was enacted to “clarify the governing standards” for suits against foreign states.
   Role: The Court quoted Verlinden to reinforce that Congress’s text, not judicial overlay, supplies the jurisdictional contours.
3. Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573 U.S. 134 (2014); Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004) — earlier recognitions that FSIA is a “comprehensive framework.”
   Role: Used to show that immunity and jurisdiction provisions form an integrated statutory design that courts should not disrupt.
4. Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (2010) and Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 587 U.S. ___ (2019) — prior discussions of §1330 and service under §1608.
   Role: Provided language emphasizing that subject-matter jurisdiction plus service equals personal jurisdiction.
5. Circuit precedent: Thos. P. Gonzalez Corp. v. Consejo Nacional de Producción de Costa Rica, 614 F.2d 1247 (9th Cir. 1980) — source of the Ninth Circuit’s doctrine that §1330(b) implicitly required minimum contacts. The Supreme Court expressly disapproved this reading.

B. Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Textual Analysis: Section 1330(b) states that personal jurisdiction “shall exist” whenever (i) a §1605–1607 immunity exception applies (per §1330(a)) and (ii) service is effected under §1608. The Court noted the conspicuous absence of any minimum-contacts language and read “shall” as mandatory and exhaustive.
2. Structural Analysis: The FSIA purposefully interlocks immunity, subject-matter jurisdiction, and personal jurisdiction. Imposing extra-textual requirements only on the jurisdictional leg would sever this legislative linkage and undermine the Act’s “comprehensive framework.”
3. Rejection of Legislative-History Argument: The Ninth Circuit relied on House Report language referencing due-process requirements. The Court responded that Congress believed those requirements were satisfied by the contacts embedded in each immunity exception, not by a free-floating requirement imported from International Shoe.
4. Due Process Left Open: Because the Ninth Circuit never reached Antrix’s constitutional argument, the Court expressly reserved whether the Fifth Amendment itself imposes a minimum-contacts constraint on suits against foreign states.
5. Alternative Grounds Deferred: Issues of applicability of the arbitration exception and forum non conveniens were remanded for initial consideration by the lower court.

C. Potential Impact

• Uniform Standard Nationwide: Eliminates the circuit split (9th & 2d Circuits required minimum contacts; D.C., 4th, 6th did not), reducing forum uncertainty for litigants dealing with foreign sovereigns.
• Enhanced Predictability for Arbitration Enforcement: Award creditors can now seek confirmation in any U.S. district that satisfies an FSIA exception and service rules—especially significant in asset-scavenging enforcement strategies.
• Heightened Sovereign-Asset Exposure: Foreign states with even tangential U.S. contacts that fit an exception (e.g., terrorism, expropriation, commercial activity) may find themselves hauled into U.S. courts without a separate minimum-contacts defense.
• Pressure on Constitutional Arguments: Expect renewed litigation on whether the Fifth Amendment independently protects foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities—an issue the Court consciously left unresolved.
• Strategic Contract Drafting: States and state-owned entities may renegotiate arbitration clauses to avoid enforcement in the U.S. or may insist on narrower waiver language.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

FSIA (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act)

Federal statute providing the exclusive rules for when a foreign state can be sued in U.S. courts. It begins with immunity as the default, then lists exceptions.

Immunity Exception

A statutory circumstance (e.g., commercial activity, arbitration awards) that strips a foreign state of immunity for that particular suit.

Personal Jurisdiction vs. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Subject-matter jurisdiction asks “Can this court hear this type of case?” Personal jurisdiction asks “Does this court have power over this defendant?”

Minimum Contacts

A constitutional test from International Shoe requiring defendants to have sufficient ties with the forum so that exercising jurisdiction is fair and complies with due process.

Arbitration Exception (FSIA §1605(a)(6))

Waives immunity for actions to confirm or enforce an arbitration agreement or award that falls under a treaty such as the New York Convention.

Service of Process under §1608

Specialized procedures (diplomatic channels, letters rogatory, etc.) by which a plaintiff must formally notify a foreign state of the lawsuit.

Force Majeure Clause

Contract provision excusing performance when unforeseen events (e.g., government action) render performance impossible.

V. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision establishes a bright-line rule: in FSIA litigation, once an immunity exception applies and the plaintiff completes statutory service, the federal court automatically has personal jurisdiction—no minimum-contacts inquiry is permissible. By rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s decades-old doctrine, the Court restores textual fidelity to §1330(b) and simplifies the jurisdictional analysis in suits against foreign sovereigns. Although constitutional and discretionary defenses (forum non conveniens, venue transfer, comity) remain available, sovereign defendants can no longer invoke International Shoe to defeat jurisdiction when Congress itself has cleared the way.

¹605 U.S. ___ (2025).