• Missouri is set to face the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in federal district court on January 27, 2025, over allegations that China hoarded PPE during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Missouri is seeking $25 billion in damages, accusing the CCP of covering up critical information about the virus and hoarding essential medical supplies, leading to significant loss of life and economic disruption.
• The lawsuit was initially dismissed but saw a turning point in 2024 when a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit allowed Missouri to pursue claims related to the hoarding of PPE as an antitrust violation.
• Missouri must prove that the CCP hoarded PPE, directly causing harm to Missouri and its citizens. Critics argue it is a political maneuver, while legal experts warn it could set a dangerous precedent for international lawsuits.
• The CCP has dismissed the lawsuit and warned of potential retaliatory actions. If Missouri secures a favorable ruling, it could set a new standard for holding foreign governments accountable, but also risk increasing tensions between the U.S. and China.

In a landmark legal battle, Missouri is set to face the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in federal district court on January 27, 2025, over allegations that China hoarded personal protective equipment (PPE) during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The state, represented by Attorney General Andrew Bailey, is seeking $25 billion in damages, accusing the CCP of actions that led to significant loss of life and economic disruption in Missouri.

The lawsuit, initially filed in 2020, accuses the CCP of covering up critical information about the virus and hoarding essential medical supplies, thereby exacerbating the global health crisis. Missouri’s case, the first of its kind, marks a significant step in the ongoing efforts to hold foreign entities accountable for their roles in the pandemic.

The legal journey

Missouri’s lawsuit has faced numerous legal hurdles. Initially dismissed by a district court judge under the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which generally shields foreign states from U.S. litigation, the case saw a turning point in 2024. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit revived part of the lawsuit, allowing Missouri to pursue claims related to the hoarding of PPE as an antitrust violation.

Attorney General Bailey, known for his assertive stance on international accountability, expressed optimism about the case’s prospects. “Missouri v. China is truly a landmark case, as we seek $25 billion in damages,” Bailey said. “We won a key victory in this case last year, so we’re feeling confident heading into trial.”

The trial and its implications

The trial began on January 27 at the federal courthouse in Cape Girardeau, with Missouri’s Solicitor General Josh Divine and his deputy, Sam Freedlund, presenting the case before Judge Stephen Limbaugh. The state must prove that the CCP and other China-based entities hoarded PPE, directly causing harm to Missouri and its citizens.

Critics of the case argue that it is a political maneuver aimed at publicly blaming China for the pandemic. Legal experts warn that a win for Missouri could set a dangerous precedent, potentially opening the door for foreign governments to sue the U.S. in international courts. Despite these concerns, Bailey remains undeterred. “We’re hauling China into court to hold them accountable for unleashing COVID-19 on the world,” he stated in a press release.

China’s response

The CCP has dismissed the lawsuit as “very absurd” and lacking factual or legal basis. China has also warned of potential retaliatory legal action, stating in a diplomatic notice to the U.S. State Department that it “does not accept and will not participate in such lawsuits … [i]f the U.S. side allows the frivolous lawsuits to proceed, the Chinese side reserves the right to take reciprocal countermeasures.”

As expected, China is not expected to send a representative to the trial, which could make a default judgment in Missouri’s favor more likely. Missouri’s Solicitor General, Josh Divine, addressed the practical implications of a potential win. “The foreign sovereign immunities act, that’s been a big issue in this case,” he said. “Well, that act expressly says that we can go and we can seize China’s property. All know that they have a lot of property here in Missouri and elsewhere in the country. We look forward to seizing $24 billion in assets and putting it back into the pockets of the people in Missouri.”

Conclusion

The outcome of the Missouri v. China case could have far-reaching implications, not only for the state but for international relations and legal precedents. If Missouri secures a favorable ruling, it could set a new standard for holding foreign governments accountable for their actions during global crises. However, the case also highlights the complex and often contentious nature of international law and diplomacy. As the trial progresses, the world will watch closely, weighing the potential benefits of accountability against the risks of heightened tensions between the U.S. and China.

Sources include:

EpochTimes.com

K8News.com

San.com