Article
Source: Law360
Article
By Gary J. Shaw
07.16.25
In its June decisions in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., the U.S. Supreme Court signaled a shift in the application of due process under the Fifth Amendment, particularly regarding foreign states and their instrumentalities under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). While the court did not definitively rule on whether minimum contacts are constitutionally required, it rejected arguments that the FSIA itself mandates such a requirement, suggesting instead that jurisdiction may be proper so long as statutory conditions are met and there is some connection to U.S. interests.
A recent article by Pillsbury senior associate Gary Shaw explains that these rulings depart from long-standing interpretations rooted in International Shoe, which require minimum contacts for jurisdiction under the 14th Amendment. This shift has major implications for enforcing arbitration awards and may weaken traditional defenses based on lack of jurisdiction, which raise both fairness concerns for foreign entities and optimism among creditors seeking enforcement under international treaties.
Click here to read the full article.