On 5 June 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., resolving an important procedural question in award enforcement against foreign states and their instrumentalities. Writing for the Court, Justice Alito held that when the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) applies, federal courts do not need to undertake a separate minimum contacts analysis under the Due Process Clause to exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign. Once an FSIA immunity exception applies and service of process is properly conducted under 28 U.S.C. § 1608, personal jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b), which reads:
Personal jurisdiction over a foreign state shall exist as to every claim for relief over which the district courts have [subject-matter] jurisdiction under subsection (a) where service has been made under section 1608 of this title.
History of the Case
The dispute arose from a contract between Antrix Corporation Ltd. (Antrix) and Devas Multimedia Private Ltd (Devas). Antrix is organized under Indian law and is owned by the Republic of India for use by its Department of Space. Devas is a privately owned Indian company incorporated to develop satellite-based telecommunications technology. In January 2005, Antrix signed a satellite-leasing agreement with Devas.
For several years, the Antrix–Devas agreement progressed smoothly. Antrix secured necessary approvals from the Indian Government and the International Telecommunications Union, while Devas obtained operating licenses, attracted investors, paid required fees, and successfully tested its software and infrastructure.
In February 2011, shortly before satellite launch, the Indian Government decided it required more satellite capacity for its own use and stopped leasing S-band spectrum for commercial purposes. Acting on government direction, Antrix terminated the contract, citing the force majeure clause, claiming the new policy made performance impossible. Devas disagreed, arguing the force majeure was self-inflicted, and initiated arbitration proceedings under the contract’s dispute resolution terms.
On 14 September 2015, a three-member International Chambers of Commerce arbitral panel unanimously ruled in favor of Devas. Applying Indian law, the panel concluded Antrix had wrongfully terminated the contract and awarded Devas USD 562.5 million in damages, plus interest.[1]
Parallel Proceedings in India and Abroad
Devas and its investors began enforcement actions against Indian assets abroad and tasked its U.S. affiliate, Devas Multimedia America Inc., with collecting debts under the ICC award. Devas sought enforcement of their award in France and the United Kingdom.
Meanwhile, in 2015, India’s Central Bureau of Investigation filed a First Information Report alleging corruption involving Devas, Antrix, and their officers. Corruption charges followed against both companies. In 2021, Antrix moved to liquidate Devas. The Supreme Court of India upheld liquidation for fraud, finding collusion between Devas, Antrix, and officials, with shareholders aware of the misconduct.[2] Following this judgment, the Delhi High Court, as the ICC seat, set aside the award.[3]
U.S. Enforcement Battle
Despite the ongoing legal battle in India, in September 2018, Devas petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to confirm the award, citing § 1605(a)(6) of the FSIA’s arbitration exception.
Enacted in 1976, the FSIA codified the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity in U.S. law, shifting determinations of immunity from the executive branch to the judiciary. It provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in U.S. courts, with a presumption of immunity subject to specific statutory exceptions, such as the commercial activity exception, the expropriation exception, and, as relevant here, the arbitration exception for recognition and enforcement of awards under treaties like the New York Convention.
The District Court entered a USD 1.29 billion judgment for Devas.[4] On appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that even where an FSIA immunity exception applies, a plaintiff must still establish the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum under International Shoe Co. v. Washington.[5] Under International Shoe Co. v. Washington, to determine whether it is fair and lawful for a court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant the defendant must have sufficient connections i.e., “minimum contacts”, with the forum state or the United States such that being brought into court there would not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”[6]
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court disagreed with the Ninth Circuit and reversed. The Court reasoned that the FSIA imposes only two requirements for personal jurisdiction: an applicable immunity exception and proper service of process. Justice Alito wrote that “the most natural reading” of the statute is that once these two conditions are met, personal jurisdiction “shall exist.”[7]
The opinion emphasized that the Ninth Circuit’s reliance on a minimum contacts requirement conflicted with the FSIA’s structure and plain text. Reading an additional requirement into § 1330(b) would create a statutory gap, undermining the Act’s “otherwise comprehensive framework.”[8]
Implications for International Arbitration
The implications for international arbitration are substantial. Award creditors enforcing against states or state-owned enterprises in the United States now face one less procedural hurdle. Under the arbitration exception, if they can demonstrate that the award falls within the scope of § 1605(a)(6) and effect service under the detailed hierarchy of § 1608, they establish both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction. This development reduces the scope for dilatory tactics based on jurisdictional objections and eliminates the circuit split created by the Ninth Circuit’s earlier decision.
While defendants will still be able to contest whether an FSIA exception applies, challenge service, or invoke the New York Convention’s refusal grounds, the door is now firmly closed on arguments that courts lack personal jurisdiction solely because a sovereign has insufficient U.S. contacts.
Conclusion
CC/Devas reinforces the FSIA’s role as a self-contained regime for litigation involving foreign states, aligning procedural rules with the pro-enforcement ethos of the New York Convention. By removing an extraneous jurisdictional barrier, the Court has strengthened the enforceability of arbitral awards against sovereigns in U.S. courts and signalled to the international arbitration community that the United States remains committed to honouring its treaty obligations without unnecessary procedural friction.
[1] Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., ICC Case No. 18051/CYK, Final Award, 14 September 2015.
[2] Devas Employees Mauritius Pvt. Ltd. v. Antrix, C.A. No. 5906 of 2022, S.C., 17 January 2022.
[3] Devas Employees Mauritius Pvt. Ltd. v. Antrix, C.A No. 1933-DB., Del. H.C., 22 August 2022.
[4] CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. C18-1360JLR, *2020 WL 6735717 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 4, 2020).
[5] CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. 20-36024, *2023 WL 4886393 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2023).
[6] International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 316 (1945).
[7] CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., 605 U.S. __(2025).
[8] CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., 605 U.S. __(2025).
