High Court Hears Arguments on Whether FSIA Requires "Minimum Contacts" to Enforce International Arbitration Awards

The Supreme Court heard argument in Cide Boss Mauritius Limited v. Antrix on whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) requires U.S. courts to apply the traditional "minimum contacts" test before confirming and enforcing international arbitration awards against foreign states. Petitioners’ counsel and the United States urged the court to reverse the Ninth Circuit and hold that an FSIA immunity exception is sufficient for jurisdiction; counsel for Antrix said the arbitration and Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) limits — and foreign-relations concerns — counsel hesitation about U.S. courts enforcing this award.

The question matters because confirmation of an arbitral award creates a judgment that can be executed on assets in the United States. "An arbitral award against a foreign state is worth little if no courts can enforce it," Mr. Street, counsel for the petitioner, told the court, arguing that Congress added the FSIA’s arbitration exception to permit enforcement of New York Convention awards against foreign sovereigns. Justice Thomas pressed how confirmation helps if there are no resources in the United States; counsel answered that a money judgment had been entered by the district court…