Skip to content
Project Curia
Supreme Court decisions
No. 23-1201Jun 5, 2025LawReversed

The question

Whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act requires a plaintiff to prove "minimum contacts" over and above the contacts required by the Act's enumerated immunity exceptions before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign state.

CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.

What the Court decided

The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that a federal court has personal jurisdiction over a foreign state under the FSIA whenever an enumerated immunity exception applies and service of process is proper. No separate showing of "minimum contacts" is required. The statute declares that personal jurisdiction "shall exist" when those two conditions are met, and the provision makes no reference to minimum contacts. The Court declined to add a requirement Congress left out of the Act's comprehensive scheme.

How the justices split

Unanimous
In favor 9
Alito
Roberts
Thomas
Sotomayor
Kagan
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Jackson

The Court's opinion

Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson

The FSIA's personal-jurisdiction provision imposes two requirements: subject-matter jurisdiction, which the Act grants whenever an enumerated immunity exception applies, and service under the Act's specialized rules. When both are satisfied, the statute declares that personal jurisdiction shall exist. The provision makes no reference to minimum contacts, and the Court declined to add what Congress left out. To the extent the immunity exceptions require suit-related domestic contact, that is because the exceptions Congress wrote happen to meet the due-process standard, not because the jurisdiction provision incorporated the Court's due-process cases. Reading a minimum-contacts requirement into only one of the Act's tethered immunity and jurisdictional provisions would weaken the link Congress forged and create a gap in its comprehensive framework.

How we know · 5 sourced claims
  • The Court held that personal jurisdiction exists under the FSIA when an immunity exception applies and service is proper.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • The FSIA does not require proof of minimum contacts over and above the contacts already required by the Act's enumerated immunity exceptions.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Alito delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

  • The Ninth Circuit had reversed the District Court's confirmation of the arbitral award, finding that personal jurisdiction was lacking.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • The FSIA's personal-jurisdiction provision imposes two requirements: subject-matter jurisdiction through an enumerated immunity exception, and service under the Act's specialized service-of-process rules.

    Source: syllabus, Held

Read the opinion on supremecourt.gov