Foreign Sovereign Immunity | State Litigation | Diplomatic Fallout

On March 7, 2025, a federal judge in Missouri granted the state a $24 billion default judgment against China—finding it liable for concealing early COVID‑19 data and hoarding personal protective equipment (PPE). The monumental ruling stems from Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s lawsuit and sets the stage for a legal and diplomatic standoff.

Key Judgments & Findings

• Default Judgment Issued: Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. ruled that China, the CCP, Wuhan authorities, and related entities failed to defend the case, triggering default liability (washingtonpost.com).
• Commercial Activity Exception: The Eighth Circuit held that PPE hoarding constituted a commercial act—thus overruling sovereign immunity—allowing Missouri’s suit to advance (en.wikipedia.org).
• Evidence of Concealment: Missouri submitted evidence from State Department cables, testimony by a Wuhan professor, and trade records showing China limited exports while inflating domestic supplies (washingtonpost.com).

Enforcement Hurdles & Asset Seizure

• Ambitious Collection Strategy: AG Bailey has signaled efforts to identify and seize Chinese‑owned assets—including farmland—to satisfy the judgment (ago.mo.gov).
• Legal and Practical Barriers: Legal analysts are skeptical about Missouri’s ability to enforce the award in U.S. courts, citing FSIA restrictions, jurisdictional hurdles, and China’s diplomatic immunity (apnews.com).

Legal & Diplomatic Implications

• FSIA & Precedent Limits: The case tests the boundaries of the FSIA’s commercial exception and may inspire similar suits by other states or private parties .
• Sovereign Jurisdiction Clash: China dismissed the ruling as “absurd,” warning of “reciprocal countermeasures” and refusing to recognize U.S. court jurisdiction (apnews.com).
• State‑Versus‑Federal Authority: Missouri’s independent legal action complicates federal diplomacy, as experts note it could strain international relations (apnews.com).

Broader Fallout

• Symbolic Justice vs. Collectability: While the judgment may lack practical enforceability, it signals a push for accountability and may influence future international litigation.
• Geopolitical Tensions: Escalation risks—such as asset seizures—could spur retaliatory regulatory or legal actions by China.
• Domestic Litigation Trend: The ruling follows similar default judgments in Mississippi and may embolden private parties to seek financial redress for pandemic-related harms (reddit.com).

Conclusion

Missouri’s $24 billion judgment against China marks a legal milestone—but practically, enforcement remains improbable without federal cooperation. The case highlights growing state-level willingness to challenge foreign sovereign acts under U.S. law. Whether symbolic or strategic, it sharpens the spotlight on how pandemics, sovereignty, and jurisdiction overlap in the modern legal landscape.