State of Missouri, ex rel. Andrew Bailey, in his official capacity as Missouri Attorney General v. The People's Republic of China; Communist Party of China; National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China; Ministry of Emergency Management of the People's Republic of China; Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China; People's Government of the Hubei Province; People's Government of Wuhan City; Wuhan Institute of Virology; Chinese Academy of Sciences
Missouri's allegation that China hoarded personal protective equipment while the rest of the world was unaware of the extent of the COVID-19 virus fell under the "commercial activity" exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, as it involved alleged anti-competitive behavior that had a direct effect in the United States.
In its complaint, Missouri alleged the defendants of negligence in handling the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing they allowed the virus to spread globally, attempted to prevent other countries from learning about it, and hoarded PPE.[2][3]
The defendants did not respond to the lawsuit. In July 2022, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the case, ruling that all defendants were presumptively entitled to immunity. The court found that Missouri failed to demonstrate that the case fell within any FSIA exceptions under 28 U.S. Code § 1605.[4][5]
Judge David Stras wrote the majority opinion. The court ruled that the Chinese defendants, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, were entitled to immunity under the FSIA. The court also upheld immunity for the Chinese Communist Party, citing Missouri's own claim that the CCP controls China's government.[8]
In applying the commercial activity exception to immunity, the court rejected most of Missouri's claims, finding China's actions did not cause the "direct" effects in the U.S. required under FSIA. However, the court ruled that the PPE-hoarding claim fell within the commercial activity exception, as China's purchase and stockpiling of PPE led to shortages and higher prices in the U.S., directly affecting Missouri's healthcare system and economy.[8]
The court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.[8]
Chief Judge Lavenski Smith dissented in part, arguing the effects of PPE hoarding were not immediate enough to qualify under the FSIA exception.[8]
Subsequent developments
In March 2025, the district court ruled that Missouri "has established this claim of damages through evidence satisfactory to the court" and issued a default judgment against the defendants, awarding Missouri over $24 billion in damages.[9][10]
Legal commentators raised concerns about whether the defendants were properly served, noting that Missouri did not use Hague Service Convention procedures required for serving foreign sovereign entities. Some argued that improper service could render the default judgment invalid.[11][12] Professor William Dodge also warned that sovereign immunity from enforcement is broader than immunity from suit, meaning Missouri may ultimately be unable to collect on the judgment due to protections over China's sovereign assets.[11]
Text of The State of Missouri v. The Peoples Republic of China, No. 22-2495 (8th Cir. 2024) is available from:Justia
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
