CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp..
The Supreme Court reviewed a case involving CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. and Antrix Corp. Ltd., focusing on the application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Ninth Circuit had reversed a District Court\'s decision due to a lack of personal jurisdiction, citing insufficient minimum contacts. The Supreme Court found that personal jurisdiction under the FSIA does not require minimum contacts beyond those specified by the Act\'s immunity exceptions.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp..
The Court held that personal jurisdiction exists under the FSIA when an immunity exception applies and service is proper.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why State Sovereign Immunity is relevant to CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.
The case involves the application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which is central to determining the jurisdiction over a foreign state.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), '[p]ersonal jurisdiction over a foreign state shall exist' whenever (1) an immunity exception applies, and (2) the foreign defendant has been properly served.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.
The case discusses the requirements for personal jurisdiction, which involves procedural due process considerations.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The FSIA does not require proof of 'minimum contacts' over and above the contacts already required by the Act's enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.
The Court's interpretation of the FSIA involves reviewing and clarifying the statutory requirements for jurisdiction, which is a form of judicial review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The FSIA was supposed to 'clarify the governing standards,' not hide the ball.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. that support the summary and concepts above.
Personal jurisdiction exists under the FSIA when an immunity exception applies and service is proper.
The FSIA does not require proof of 'minimum contacts' over and above the contacts already required by the Act's enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity.
The FSIA's personal-jurisdiction provision imposes two substantive requirements.
