October Term 2024 · Docket 23-1201
Does the FSIA require minimum contacts to enforce arbitration awards?
The dispute centers on whether U.S. courts need minimum contacts to enforce arbitration awards against foreign states.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Aaron Streett argued for CC/Devas. He stated arbitration awards are worthless without court enforcement. He claimed Congress added the FSIA exception to allow such enforcement.
Ms. Harris argued for CC/Devas. She stated the case should begin and end with FSIA text. She claimed Section 1330(b) omits minimum contacts requirements.
Mr. Phillips argued for Antrix. He described the context of the arbitration agreement. He noted both corporations were incorporated in India.
Mr. McGill argued for Antrix. He claimed the Ninth Circuit construction was unfaithful to text. He argued Congress provided jurisdiction where immunity exceptions exist.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 53-1 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 53-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 47-17 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 47-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 21-53 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 21-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-29 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-53 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-53
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
CC/Devas Ltd. seeks to enforce an arbitration award against Antrix Corp. Antrix argues the FSIA requires minimum contacts. The Ninth Circuit agreed with Antrix. CC/Devas argues the statute omits this requirement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 21-53 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 21-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-27
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 3, 2025.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-23
What each side wants
CC/Devas wants the Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit. It seeks to enforce the arbitration award without minimum contacts.
Antrix wants the Court to affirm the Ninth Circuit. It seeks to deny enforcement due to lack of minimum contacts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 21-53 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 21-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-27
What each side says
CC/Devas argues the FSIA text omits minimum contacts. It claims Congress intended to allow enforcement of New York Convention awards.
Antrix argues the FSIA requires minimum contacts. It claims the arbitration exception does not override this jurisdictional requirement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 21-53 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 21-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-27
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked why the Court should reach issues not decided below.
Justice Thomas asked if the Court needs to resolve the constitutional question.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 53-1 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 53-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 47-17 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 47-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-29 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-53 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-53
Why it matters
This case determines whether foreign states can block arbitration enforcement in U.S. courts. It affects the global enforceability of commercial arbitration awards. It clarifies the scope of sovereign immunity exceptions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 21-53 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 21-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-27
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 53-1 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 53-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 47-17 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 47-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-29 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-53 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-53
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 21-53 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 21-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 21-53 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 21-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-27
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.