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

Case summary

At a glance

Parties: CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. et al. (petitioners, No. 23-1201) and Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. (petitioner, No. 24-17) v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. et al. (respondents)
Case no.: Supreme Court of the United States, No. 23-1201 (consolidated with No. 24-17); 605 U. S. 223 (2025)
Court: Supreme Court of the United States, on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Underlying award(s): Award of a three-member arbitral panel of 14 September 2015 under the Devas–Antrix satellite-leasing agreement, applying Indian law
Treaty: None. The petition relied on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's arbitration exception (28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6)); the opinion refers to the New York Convention as one treaty that can trigger it
Tribunal: Unanimous Court; opinion delivered by Justice Alito
Sector: Satellite telecommunications
Outcome: The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded. Under the FSIA, personal jurisdiction exists when an immunity exception applies and service is proper; no separate minimum-contacts showing is required (5 June 2025).
Amount: Arbitral award: USD 562.5 million in damages plus interest. District Court judgment confirming the award: USD 1.29 billion.

The dispute

Antrix Corporation Ltd. is owned by the Republic of India for use by its Department of Space and acts as the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation. In January 2005 it agreed to build and launch a satellite network and lease part of its capacity to Devas Multimedia Private Ltd., a privately owned Indian company. In February 2011 the Indian Government decided it needed the S-band spectrum for itself, and Antrix terminated the contract under its force majeure clause. An arbitral panel unanimously held the termination wrongful and awarded Devas USD 562.5 million plus interest. Devas petitioned to confirm the award in the Western District of Washington under the FSIA's arbitration exception. The District Court confirmed the award, but the Ninth Circuit reversed because, in its view, the FSIA also requires 'minimum contacts' under International Shoe, and it found Antrix had none with the United States.

Key holdings

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b), personal jurisdiction over a foreign state is automatic when two conditions are met: an FSIA immunity exception applies, which gives subject-matter jurisdiction, and service has been made under § 1608. The provision contains no minimum-contacts requirement, and the Court declines to add one. pp. 232–233
The required contact with the United States comes from the immunity exceptions themselves, which demand varying degrees of suit-related domestic nexus. Where those exceptions satisfy International Shoe, it is because of how Congress wrote them, not because § 1330(b) silently incorporates the due-process test. pp. 233–234
The Act's structure supports this reading. Congress tied immunity and jurisdiction together. Reading a minimum-contacts requirement into § 1330(b) alone would weaken that link and leave a gap in the FSIA's comprehensive framework. p. 234
The Ninth Circuit's reasons, taken from Thos. P. Gonzalez Corp. v. Consejo Nacional de Produccion de Costa Rica, fail. The 'direct effect' language in one exception says nothing about the separate jurisdictional provision. House Report No. 94-1487 shows only that Congress believed the contacts in the immunity exceptions satisfy due process. pp. 235–236
The Court declines to decide Antrix's alternative arguments in the first instance: that the Fifth Amendment itself requires minimum contacts, that the claims fall outside the arbitration exception, and that the suit should be dismissed for forum non conveniens. Antrix may raise them on remand, subject to forfeiture and waiver. pp. 236–237

Procedural history

January 2005Antrix and Devas sign the satellite-leasing agreement.
February 2011Antrix terminates the agreement under its force majeure clause after the Indian Government reserves the S-band spectrum for its own use.
14 September 2015The three-member arbitral panel rules unanimously for Devas and awards USD 562.5 million plus interest. Devas later has the award confirmed in France and the United Kingdom.
September 2018Devas petitions the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to confirm the award. The court confirms it and enters a USD 1.29 billion judgment. An Indian corporate-law tribunal later finds the agreement was procured by fraud, and the High Court of New Delhi sets the award aside. Devas shareholders and an American subsidiary intervene to enforce the judgment.
1 August 2023The Ninth Circuit reverses the orders confirming and registering the award for lack of personal jurisdiction.
3 March 2025Oral argument before the Supreme Court.
5 June 2025The Supreme Court unanimously reverses the Ninth Circuit and remands.