Supreme Court Eyes Limited Ruling on Foreign Arbitration Award

The Supreme Court appeared prime to rule narrowly in a dispute over when US courts can enforce foreign arbitration awards, and leave the larger constitutional questions for another day.

The case argued Monday started as a contract dispute between two Indian companies in which one sought to enforce the more than $500 million arbitration award in the US.

Devas Multimedia Private Ltd., a privately owned corporation, obtained a more than $500 million arbitration award against Antrix Corp. Ltd., a company owned by the Indian government, over telecommunications services.

But the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said American courts didn’t have the authority to enforce it.

The Ninth Circuit agreed the case satisfied the explicit requirements set forth in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which sets forth when foreign-owned companies can be sued in the US. But it said that more was required, specifically a sufficient connection with the US in order to justify federal court intervention.

The case involves a contract executed and performed in India, resolved by arbitration according to that country’s law, and reviewed by an Indian court, said Sidley Austin partner Carter Phillips. Nothing about the case implicates the US, Phillips said.

Gibson Dunn’s Matthew McGill said the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of FSIA is “unfaithful to its text.” It’s an argument that seemed to have a lot of force in a 6-3 conservative court that claims to hue closely to statutory text.

There’s “radical agreement” the the Ninth Circuit got it wrong, McGill said.

Given that agreement, Justice Elena Kagan suggested the court should just reverse the Ninth Circuit and not get into the alternative question of whether the Constitution requires a sufficient connection to the US.

And while several justices seemed hesitant to go further than required, Justice Samuel Alito wondered if the case would “just bounce back here very quickly.”

The justices might touch on the issue in a separate case to be argued April 1. Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization centers on whether Congress can authorize suits in the US for individuals harmed in terror attacks abroad.

The cases are CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., U.S., No. 23-1201, argued 3/3/25 and Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., U.S., No. 24-17, argued 3/3/25.