Search a title or topic

Over 20 million podcasts, powered by 

Player FM logo
Artwork

Content provided by SCOTUS Oral Arguments. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by SCOTUS Oral Arguments or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

Opinion Summary: CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. | Date Decided: 6/5/25 | Case No. 23–1201

8:12
 
Share
 

Manage episode 487086440 series 3660688
Content provided by SCOTUS Oral Arguments. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by SCOTUS Oral Arguments or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.

Opinion Summary: CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. | Date Decided: 6/5/25 | Case No. 23–1201

This case was consolidated with: Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., Case No. 24-17.

Link to Docket: Here.

Questions Presented:

  1. Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
  2. The question presented in Antrix Corp. Ltd. is: Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, "[p]ersonal jurisdiction over a foreign state shall exist as to every claim for relief over which the district courts have jurisdiction under subsection (a) where service has been made under section 1608 of this title." 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b).

Host Note: Consolidated with: Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., Case No. 24-17

Holding: 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.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Alito delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

  • For petitioner in 24-17: Aaron Streett, Houston, Tex.
  • For petitioners in 23-1201: Matthew D. McGill, Washington, D.C.
  • For United States, as amicus curiae supporting petitioners: Sarah M. Harris, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
  • For respondents: Carter G. Phillips, Washington, D. C.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Timestamps:

  continue reading

229 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 487086440 series 3660688
Content provided by SCOTUS Oral Arguments. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by SCOTUS Oral Arguments or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.

Opinion Summary: CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. | Date Decided: 6/5/25 | Case No. 23–1201

This case was consolidated with: Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., Case No. 24-17.

Link to Docket: Here.

Questions Presented:

  1. Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
  2. The question presented in Antrix Corp. Ltd. is: Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, "[p]ersonal jurisdiction over a foreign state shall exist as to every claim for relief over which the district courts have jurisdiction under subsection (a) where service has been made under section 1608 of this title." 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b).

Host Note: Consolidated with: Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., Case No. 24-17

Holding: 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.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Alito delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

  • For petitioner in 24-17: Aaron Streett, Houston, Tex.
  • For petitioners in 23-1201: Matthew D. McGill, Washington, D.C.
  • For United States, as amicus curiae supporting petitioners: Sarah M. Harris, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
  • For respondents: Carter G. Phillips, Washington, D. C.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Timestamps:

  continue reading

229 episodes

All episodes

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Copyright 2025 | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | | Copyright
Listen to this show while you explore
Play