Technical corrections only. The changes between v2 (Reported in Senate) and v3 (Engrossed in Senate) are limited to updating the legislative status and formatting. There are no substantive policy changes to the bill's text.
Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 4, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to shield U.S. persons and entities from foreign legal challenges stemming from their adherence to U.S. sanctions policy, thereby reinforcing the extraterritorial effect of U.S. economic measures and protecting U.S. national security interests.
What it actually does
This bill creates a new federal law (28 U.S.C. § 1660) that prohibits the enforcement of foreign judgments or arbitral awards in U.S. federal or state courts if those judgments arise from claims related to compliance with U.S. sanctions or if the foreign court's jurisdiction was based on the imposition of U.S. sanctions. It also establishes a mechanism for defendants to remove such enforcement actions to U.S. district courts, which are then mandated to dismiss them.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential to protect U.S. businesses and individuals who are legally obligated to comply with U.S. sanctions and export controls. Without such protection, they could face significant financial penalties and legal risks from foreign courts seeking to circumvent U.S. foreign policy. This legislation ensures that compliance with U.S. law does not put American entities at a disadvantage internationally, safeguarding their economic interests and preventing foreign judicial overreach.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that while the intent to protect U.S. entities is understandable, this bill could be seen as an aggressive assertion of U.S. jurisdiction, potentially escalating international legal disputes and further complicating global commerce. It could be perceived as undermining the principles of international arbitration and judicial recognition, potentially leading to retaliatory measures from other nations that might refuse to recognize U.S. judgments.
The bill is concise and uses clear legal language, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 3(a), adding 28 U.S.C. § 1660(a)
Prohibiting Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Related to US Sanctions Compliance
This provision prevents any person or entity (other than the U.S. government) from using U.S. federal or state courts to enforce foreign judgments or arbitral awards. This prohibition applies if the original claim arose because someone complied with U.S. sanctions that interfered with a contract, or if the foreign court's jurisdiction was based on the existence of U.S. sanctions or related foreign laws. This directly blocks attempts to penalize U.S. entities for following U.S. law.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for protecting U.S. economic interests and national security by ensuring that U.S. entities are not penalized for adhering to U.S. law. It prevents foreign courts from undermining U.S. sanctions policy and creating conflicting legal obligations for American businesses.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this provision could be seen as an aggressive assertion of U.S. legal authority, potentially leading to diplomatic friction and challenges to the recognition of international legal norms. It could also complicate dispute resolution for legitimate international contracts where sanctions are a factor.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the protection of U.S. national security and economic policy interests against potential challenges to international legal comity and the universal enforceability of foreign judgments.
Section 3(a), adding 28 U.S.C. § 1660(b)
Expedited Removal and Dismissal of Sanctions-Related Foreign Judgment Enforcement Suits
This section provides a clear procedural mechanism allowing any defendant in an action to enforce a foreign judgment or arbitral award, as described in subsection (a), to remove that case from state court to an appropriate U.S. district court. Once removed, the U.S. district court is mandated to dismiss the action, streamlining the process of rejecting such claims and preventing prolonged litigation in state courts.
Section 3(a), adding 28 U.S.C. § 1660(c)
Clarifying Limitations and Preserving Other Legal Rights
This section explicitly states what the new law does *not* limit. It ensures that the President's authority regarding sanctions, the rights of victims of international terrorism (including U.S. nationals, military, government employees, and contractors), and existing contractual rights (where parties agreed to U.S. litigation or arbitration) are preserved. It also clarifies that other rights or causes of action under state or federal law, not involving the enforcement of prohibited foreign judgments, remain unaffected.
This subsection defines 'United States sanctions' broadly to include prohibitions, restrictions, or conditions on transactions involving foreign property, imposed to address threats to national security, foreign policy, or economy, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) or other export control laws. Crucially, it explicitly states that 'United States sanctions' does *not* include 'the imposition of a duty on the importation of goods.'
Section 3(a), adding 28 U.S.C. § 1660(d)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to place definitions at the end of a section. The exclusion of 'duties' is a technical clarification designed to prevent misinterpretation and ensure the bill's application is limited to economic sanctions, not trade tariffs, which operate under different legal frameworks.
Case for: Supporters would argue this precise definition prevents ambiguity and ensures the bill's scope is appropriately limited to economic sanctions, not trade tariffs or duties, which operate under distinct legal frameworks. This clarity avoids unintended overreach into trade policy.
Case against: No direct opposition to the definition itself is typically raised, but critics might argue that the explicit exclusion of duties could create a loophole if foreign judgments arise from actions related to duties that are perceived as sanctions-like by other nations, potentially narrowing the bill's protective scope.
Estimated impact: This definition clarifies the precise scope of the bill, significantly affecting its applicability to a range of trade-related disputes and ensuring it does not inadvertently interfere with existing trade law or tariff regimes.