Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act of 2025
Summary
HB6194, titled the “Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act of 2025,” would bar most private parties from bringing civil actions in U.S. federal or state courts to enforce foreign judgments or foreign arbitral awards when the underlying dispute arose because a party was trying in good faith to comply with U.S. sanctions or export controls. It also blocks enforcement when the foreign court or tribunal based jurisdiction, in whole or in part, on U.S. sanctions or export controls, or on foreign laws enacted in response to those sanctions or controls.
The bill creates a new section in title 28 of the U.S. Code and authorizes removal to federal court and mandatory dismissal of covered enforcement actions. It includes several carveouts, preserving the authority of the U.S. government and protecting certain terrorism- and human-rights-related claims, as well as ordinary contractual and other state or federal causes of action that do not involve enforcing a covered foreign judgment or award. The definition of “United States sanctions” is broad and includes sanctions and export controls imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and related authorities, but excludes tariffs or import duties.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add 28 U.S.C. § 1660 and directly limit the enforceability of certain foreign judgments and arbitral awards in both federal and state courts. It would preempt private enforcement actions in covered cases, shift those cases into federal court on removal, and require dismissal, while leaving intact other claims and government enforcement powers. The measure would affect parties involved in cross-border contracts, sanctions compliance disputes, arbitration, and litigation tied to Russia-related or other sanctions regimes.
Sentiment
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable treatment of the bill, as reflected by its introduction by a bipartisan group of members and its later advancement by voice vote after amendment. The absence of recorded roll-call votes or committee transcript debate indicates no documented floor-level division in the materials provided, and the committee action suggests the measure was viewed as a targeted response to sanctions-related litigation concerns.
Contention
The main policy tension in the bill is between protecting U.S. persons who comply with sanctions and preserving access to foreign judgments or arbitral awards for foreign parties affected by those sanctions. Potential points of contention include the breadth of the sanctions definition, the reach of the federal preemption over state and federal enforcement actions, and whether the bill could limit remedies in commercial disputes that are indirectly affected by sanctions. The bill attempts to address some concerns by preserving terrorism-related claims, government authority, and ordinary contractual rights outside the enforcement of foreign judgments or awards.
To amend sections 2929.15, 2929.16, 2929.25, 2967.131, and 2967.15 and to enact section 2903.217 of the Revised Code to enact the Adult Parole Authority Enhancement Act.
Concerning retroactively applying the requirement to exclude certain juvenile convictions from an offender score regardless of the date of the offense.