In a unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned a Ninth Circuit decision declining to enforce a US$ 1.3 billion arbitral award issued to Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. ("Devas"), an Indian company. The Supreme Court held that there isno need to show"minimum contacts"with the jurisdiction to establish personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act("FSIA"). Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit's requirement of certain "minimum contacts" to establish personal jurisdiction under the statute no longer stands. This Legal Update takes a close look at the Devas v Antrix decision and its implications from an arbitral award enforcement perspective.
BACKGROUND TO DISPUTE
Devas entered into a contract with Antrix Corporation Ltd. ("Antrix"), a corporation wholly owned by the Republic of India, under which Antrix would build and launch satellites, and lease capacity on those satellites to Devas for multimedia broadcasting services in India. This agreement continued until, under pressure from government officials, Antrix terminated the agreement with Devas pursuant to the contract's force majeure clause, citing India's new satellite allocation policy as preventing performance of the contract.
ICC PROCEEDINGS AND LOWER COURT DECISIONS
Devas initiated ICC arbitration proceedings and argued that the force majeure was self-induced. The arbitral tribunal agreed, finding that Antrix wrongfully terminated the contract and awarding Devas $562.5 million in damages, plus interest. Devas successfully confirmed that award in both France and the United Kingdom. Devas then turned to the US District Court for the Western District of Washington to confirm the award, citing the FSIA's "arbitration exception" as the basis for federal jurisdiction. Antrix then moved to dismiss, arguing that the District Court lacked jurisdiction. The District Court confirmed the award and entered a US$ 1.29 billion judgment against Antrix (covering the full amount of the award, as well as pre- and post- award interest and costs).
The Ninth Circuit reversed the decision on appeal, holding that the District Court was required to conduct a "minimum contacts" analysis under the FSIA, using the legal standard set out in International Shoe Co. v. Washington 326 US 310 (1945). The Ninth Circuit held that under that analysis, the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over Antrix. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari to resolve whether the FSIA requires proof of "minimum contacts" for personal jurisdiction over a foreign state or its instrumentalities.
SUPREME COURT DECISION
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the ruling of the Ninth Circuit, holding that under the FSIA, personal jurisdiction over a foreign state or its instrumentality exists when (i) an exception to sovereign immunity applies, and (ii) service of process is properly effected under the FSIA's specialized rules, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
The Supreme Court held that the FSIA itself does not require a separate showing of "minimum contacts" as articulated in International Shoe. The Court reasoned that the< strong>text and structure of the FSIA do not require any additional showing. Looking at the plain language of the FSIA, the Court found no reference to any "minimum contacts" requirement and declined to read such a requirement into the statute. The only requirements imposed by the statute's language are subject-matter jurisdiction and proper service. The Court also held that the legislative history of the FSIA does not override the plain meaning of the text of the statute. The Supreme Court did not answer the separate question whether Devas had to show "minimum contacts" under International Shoe and its progeny under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, because the Ninth Circuit had not addressed that issue. The Supreme Court remanded so that the Ninth Circuit could address Antrix's remaining arguments.
IMPLICATIONS
The Supreme Court's decision provides important clarity for parties seeking to enforce arbitral awards or otherwise litigate against foreign states or their instrumentalities in US courts. The ruling confirms that, under the FSIA, personal jurisdiction is established by the application of an immunity exception and proper service of process. However, there is no additional statutory requirement to demonstrate that the foreign state or instrumentality has "minimum contacts" with the United States.
By reinforcing the predictability and comprehensiveness of the statutory scheme,this decisionadds a new layer to the existing case law on award enforcement against foreign states and their instrumentalities.
Importantly, however, the Supreme Court's decision in this case was a narrow one, leaving open the question of whether the Due Process Clause itself requires an additional showing of "minimum contacts."
The full Supreme Court opinion can be read here.
Visit us at mayerbrown.com
Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising associated legal practices that are separate entities, including Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England & Wales), Mayer Brown (a Hong Kong partnership) and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian law partnership) and non-legal service providers, which provide consultancy services (collectively, the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are established in various jurisdictions and may be a legal person or a partnership. PK Wong & Nair LLC ("PKWN") is the constituent Singapore law practice of our licensed joint law venture in Singapore, Mayer Brown PK Wong & Nair Pte. Ltd. Details of the individual Mayer Brown Practices and PKWN can be found in the Legal Notices section of our website. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of Mayer Brown.
© Copyright 2025. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.
