Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Hunt, Wesley [R-TX-38]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 26, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to protect U.S. persons from foreign litigation stemming from their compliance with U.S. sanctions and export controls by blocking the enforcement of related foreign judgments in U.S. courts.
What it actually does
This bill creates a new section in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, prohibiting the enforcement of certain foreign judgments or arbitral awards in U.S. federal or state courts. Specifically, it targets judgments arising from claims where the underlying conduct was an action to comply with U.S. sanctions, or where the foreign court asserted jurisdiction based on U.S. sanctions. It also provides a mechanism for defendants to remove such actions to federal court for dismissal.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is crucial for protecting U.S. entities and individuals who are caught between conflicting legal obligations when complying with U.S. sanctions, preventing them from being penalized by foreign courts for adhering to U.S. law. They emphasize the need to safeguard U.S. economic and foreign policy interests by ensuring that U.S. sanctions remain effective without unduly burdening U.S. persons.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill could be seen as an overreach of U.S. jurisdiction, potentially undermining international legal norms regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards. They might also contend that it could complicate international trade relations and create legal uncertainty for foreign entities dealing with U.S. persons, potentially leading to retaliatory measures by other countries.
The bill is concise and its core provisions are clearly stated, making it accessible for a quick but informed review.
Section 3(a), adding 28 U.S.C. 1660(a)
Prohibition on Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Related to Sanctions Compliance
This provision establishes a new federal law preventing any private person or entity from using U.S. federal or state courts to enforce foreign judgments or arbitral awards under specific circumstances. These circumstances include situations where the original claim arose because a U.S. person acted to comply with U.S. sanctions, thereby impeding a contract's performance. It also applies if the foreign court or tribunal based its jurisdiction, even partially, on the existence of U.S. sanctions or any foreign law enacted in response to those sanctions. This aims to shield U.S. actors from being penalized domestically for adhering to U.S. foreign policy.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential to shield U.S. businesses and individuals from being caught in a legal bind, where complying with U.S. law (sanctions) leads to liability in foreign courts, which could then be enforced in the U.S. It ensures U.S. sanctions policy is not undermined by foreign legal actions.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this provision could be perceived as undermining the principle of comity, where nations respect each other's legal decisions. They might also argue it could lead to increased legal uncertainty in international contracts and potentially invite reciprocal measures from other countries.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the protection of U.S. persons complying with U.S. sanctions against the principles of international legal cooperation and the recognition of foreign judgments. It prioritizes U.S. national security and foreign policy interests over potential international legal friction.
Section 3(a), adding 28 U.S.C. 1660(b)
Mechanism for Handling Prohibited Actions
This subsection outlines the procedural steps for handling civil actions that attempt to enforce the foreign judgments or arbitral awards prohibited by this Act. It grants any defendant in such an action the right to remove the case from a state court to an appropriate United States district court. Once the case is removed to federal court, the district court is then legally required to dismiss the action, ensuring that these specific types of foreign judgments cannot be recognized or enforced within the U.S. legal system, thereby providing a clear and efficient legal remedy.
Section 3(a), adding 28 U.S.C. 1660(c)
Preservation of Other Legal Rights and Actions
This crucial 'Rule of Construction' clarifies that the new limitations on enforcing foreign judgments do not diminish or restrict several other important categories of legal actions and rights. Specifically, it ensures that the authority of the U.S. government to bring actions remains intact. It also explicitly protects the rights and remedies available to victims of international terrorism, torture, extrajudicial killing, and other specified crimes, including those under existing federal statutes like the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act. Furthermore, it safeguards contractual rights where parties have agreed to resolve disputes through U.S. litigation or arbitration, and other general rights under state or federal law.
Section 3(a), adding 28 U.S.C. 1660(d)
Definition of Applicable Sanctions
This subsection provides a precise definition for the term 'United States sanctions' as it is used throughout the Act, ensuring clarity and consistent application. It broadly encompasses any prohibition, restriction, or condition placed on transactions involving foreign property or nationals, which are imposed by the United States to address threats to its national security, foreign policy, or economy. These sanctions typically originate from authorities such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) or other export control laws. Importantly, the definition explicitly excludes the imposition of import duties, thereby narrowing the scope of what constitutes a 'United States sanction' for the purposes of this legislation.
The Act applies to civil actions pending on or after the date of its enactment, meaning it has a retroactive effect on ongoing cases.
Section 3(c)
Why it matters:While common for clarifying statutes, applying new legal restrictions to pending cases can be contentious and is often placed at the end of a bill.
Case for: Proponents would argue that retroactive application is necessary to immediately address the problem of ongoing litigation against U.S. persons for sanctions compliance, ensuring prompt protection and preventing further harm.
Case against: Opponents might argue that retroactive application could be seen as unfair to plaintiffs who initiated actions under existing legal frameworks, potentially disrupting settled expectations and raising due process concerns.
Estimated impact: Directly impacts any civil actions currently pending in U.S. courts that fall under the scope of the new limitation, potentially leading to their dismissal.