Global Voice Group SA v. Republic of Guinea

── Global Voice Group SA v. Republic of Guinea ── Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 14, 2025 Decided May 29, 2026 No. 25-7033 GLOBAL VOICE GROUP SA, APPELLANT v. REPUBLIC OF GUINEA, APPELLEE Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:22-cv-02100) Alexander H. Loomis argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Dennis Hranitzky and Owen B. Smitherman. James H. Boykin III argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Carter Rosekrans, Winthrop Jordan, and Kayahan Cantekin. Before: HENDERSON, KATSAS and GARCIA, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.  2 KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: This case stems from a contractual dispute between the Republic of Guinea (Guinea) and Global Voice Group SA (Global Voice), a Seychellois company that offers financial and telecommunications services. Global Voice sued Guinea, seeking confirmation of an arbitral award and recognition of a foreign court judgment. The district court dismissed both claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reasoning that Guinea is immune from suit. Global Voice challenges both dismissals. This appeal can be resolved by applying two recent decisions of the Court. We cannot conclude on this record that the district court lacked jurisdiction of Global Voice’s award-confirmation claim because its dismissal of that claim failed to account for our holding in TIG Insurance v. Republic of Argentina, 110 F.4th 221 (D.C. Cir. 2024). Separately, our decision in Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. v. Zimbabwe Mining Development Corp., 143 F.4th 496 (D.C. Cir. 2025), confirms that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Global Voice’s judgment-recognition claim. Accordingly, we vacate the dismissal of the award-confirmation claim, affirm the dismissal of the judgment-recognition claim and remand the award-confirmation claim to the district court. I. Background “[P]remised upon the ‘perfect equality and absolute independence of sovereigns,’” the “doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity has been recognized since early in the history of our Nation.” Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851, 865 (2008) (quoting Schooner Exch. v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 137 (1812)). Because this immunity is “a matter of grace and comity” and not a constitutional command, Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S.  3 480, 486 (1983), its contours have shifted over time, see Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, 598 U.S. 264, 271–72 (2023) (summarizing the evolution of our Nation’s approach to foreign sovereign immunity). Today, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq., governs whether a foreign state is immune from suit in the United States. The FSIA provides “a comprehensive set of legal standards governing claims of immunity in every civil action against a foreign state or its political subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities,” Verlinden B.V., 461 U.S. at 488, and “codifies a baseline principle of immunity,” Turkiye Halk Bankasi, 598 U.S. at 272. It also includes a series of “exceptions to that principle.” Id. This framework constitutes “the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in federal court.” Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 439 (1989). Thus, in the absence of an applicable FSIA exception, a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of a suit brought against a foreign state. See Borochov v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 94 F.4th 1053, 1060 (D.C. Cir. 2024). Relevant here, the FSIA’s arbitration exception abrogates a foreign state’