JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has concluded his legal battle against China, seeking to hold the nation accountable for the spread of COVID-19.
The case, which Missouri originally filed in 2020, alleges that the Chinese Communist Party played a direct role in causing and worsening the pandemic, ultimately harming Missourians and the state’s economy.
"Today, we hauled China into court to hold them accountable for unleashing COVID-19 on the world,” Bailey said following the trial. "Missouri is the only state in the nation to file suit to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable for causing and exacerbating COVID-19."
Bailey expressed optimism about the case, highlighting the judge’s engagement during proceedings.
"Today was a great day: the judge was engaged in our arguments and asked detailed questions," he said. "We feel confident that we will collect on the $25 billion we’re demanding in damages. And if China refuses to pay up, we will seize Chinese assets instead."
During the trial, the court acknowledged the state's presentation of what it described as "an abundance of uncontroverted evidence" demonstrating China’s role in harming Missourians through its handling of COVID-19.
The judge also indicated that he is inclined to rule in Missouri’s favor.
Missouri's lawsuit specifically argues that China thwarted the production, purchasing, and import and export of essential medical supplies, including personal protective equipment (PPE), which were crucial during the height of the pandemic.
The state is seeking $25 billion in damages as a remedy for the alleged economic and public health consequences.
Despite Missouri’s legal actions, China has refused to participate in the court proceedings, increasing the likelihood of a default judgment in the state’s favor.
The court’s ruling is expected in the coming weeks, and if the judgment favors Missouri, the state could pursue measures to collect damages, including seizing Chinese assets.
Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of Missouri against China. In that case, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed Missouri’s lawsuit against various Chinese entities, including the government of China, over the impact of COVID-19.
Missouri alleged that China’s negligence led to the virus’s escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, that China suppressed information about the outbreak, and that it hoarded personal protective equipment (PPE) while selling lower-quality alternatives.
The state sought damages for economic losses and public health harms.
The district court dismissed Missouri’s case, ruling that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) barred all claims.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit largely affirmed this decision but revived Missouri’s claim related to PPE hoarding.
Under FSIA, foreign states and their entities are generally immune from lawsuits in U.S. courts unless an exception applies.
The court determined that all defendants qualified as “foreign states” under the law, including the Chinese Communist Party, which exercises control over the government and related entities.
Missouri relied on two FSIA exceptions: the "noncommercial tort" exception and the "commercial activity" exception.
The court rejected Missouri’s claims under the noncommercial tort exception because China’s actions—such as restricting information and managing its healthcare response—were deemed discretionary policy decisions, which FSIA shields from judicial review.
Most of Missouri’s claims also failed under the commercial activity exception.
The court found that the spread of COVID-19 and its economic consequences involved too many intervening factors, making the alleged harm too indirect to establish jurisdiction.
However, the court ruled that Missouri’s PPE hoarding claim was different.
Missouri alleged that China bought up the world’s supply of PPE, took over factories producing masks for U.S. companies, and then sold lower-quality masks as the pandemic worsened.
The court held that this conduct was commercial in nature and had a “direct effect” in the United States, allowing Missouri to proceed with this claim.
Chief Judge Lavenski Smith dissented on this point, arguing that the PPE hoarding claim also lacked a sufficiently direct effect in the U.S.
He warned against expanding FSIA exceptions in a way that could interfere with diplomatic and political matters.
Ultimately, the Eighth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the PPE hoarding claim but affirmed the rest of the district court’s ruling.