There are increasing tensions between the United States and China after heavy invoices, expanded penalties and export controls and strong threats from the current administration. Both the executive and the US government’s legislative sectors have taken steps in 2025 to limit access to US markets by Chinese companies and to increase cross -border control, citing national security concerns. Whether US protectionism and skepticism against the Chinese government will affect the decisions by US courts remains for debate. An area of interest is in cases seeking to recognize and enforce Chinese judgments in the US over the last 15 years, US courts have tended to recognize and enforce Chinese money decisions and reject attacks on the impartiality of the Chinese judicial system. Chinese courts, in turn, have imposed us money on the basis of the principle of reciprocity. Changes in the US courts approach to Chinese courts could disturb this subtle balance.
In the US, the recognition of foreign judgments is governed by state law. The vast majority of states either adopted the 2005 uniform act of recognizing foreign money money (the “act”) or is based on its predecessor. By law, a foreign ruling will usually be recognized unless: (1) the judicial system that makes the ruling is incompatible with the requirements of a fair proceedings in the United States, (2) the foreign court had no personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or (3) the foreign court had no jurisdiction of subjects. Uniform law on recognition of foreign money money, § 4 (b) (2005). In general, the party that resists the recognition of a foreign crisis bears the burden of establishing that there is a reason for non -recognition.
The first time a US court acknowledged a Chinese Court of money was in July 2009 Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial Co., Ltd. by Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc.2009 WL 2190187 (CD Cal. 22 July 2009), undervalued 425 F. App’x 580 (9th Cir. 2011). The case included two Chinese companies that bought helicopters from California Company, Robinson Helicopter Co. After two of the helicopters crashed in China, Chinese companies secured a $ 900,000 money crisis ordered by the Hubei Higher People court. When Robinson does not pay, Chinese companies have tried to impose the ruling on the California federal court. The Regional Court granted Robinson’s proposal for a summary ruling on the grounds that the restrictions’ regime had expired before the Chinese court accepted the case. According to the appeal, the US Court of Appeal for the ninth circuit was reversed, finding that Chinese action was not banned by the regime of restrictions and “there was no basis for the finding that the imposition of the CRC decision would violate California’s public policy”.
By the Hassle Case, the US courts generally chose to impose the decisions of the Chinese Court, rejecting arguments that criticize China’s legal process. Three recent cases demonstrate this trend. In Shanghai Yongrun Investment Management Company, Ltd. v. Xu2021 WL 1716424 (NY SUP. Ct., NY CNTY, April 30 2021), restarted 203 AD3D 495 (ny app., Div. 2022), Kashi Galaxy Venture Capital was crushed under shares agreement with Shangai Yongrun Investment. Shanghai Yongrun secured a money crisis for RMB 64.078.417.03 in Beijing No. 1 intermediate People’s Court against Kashi Galaxy and its controller. Because the defendants had no assets in China, Shanghai Yongrun tried to impose the decision on New York. XU rejected the complaint on the basis that the ruling “was made on the basis of a system that does not provide impartial courts or proceedings compatible with the requirements of the fair proceedings” and the New York State Court granted the proposal but appeared. The Secondary Department, the first section, found that the defendants had the opportunity to hear, represent a lawyer and attract the right to appeal to the underlying procedure and therefore “the basic demands of the fair procedure are met”. The case was referred to discovery and continues.
In another case of New York, the Court of Appeal confirmed the refusal of a brief ruling, where the basis for the defendant’s proposal was that the Chinese judicial system did not comply with the requirements of the fair proceedings. In Huizhi Liu by Guoqing Guan225 AD3D 749 (2D Dep’t 20 March 2024), both the Court of Justice and the Secondary Court found out that the submission of the 2018 Foreign Ministry accused for Human Rights Prictices was sufficient to convict the judicial proceedings of China and the decline of the judicial court and the judicial court of the courtyard of the court and the Defend ‘ Contractan Contract.
Similarly, the defendant Tianzhu Coal Co. v. Ju83 various. 3D 1270 (A) (NY SUP. Ct., Nassau Cnty August 12, 2024) opposed the imposition of the execution of the RMB 90.966.600 money by the province of Gansu Lanzhou in the middle of the people’s court for reasons that the ruling was a political confrontation against a judicial system. The accused submitted affidavits from various experts criticizing China’s legal and political systems. However, the New York Court concluded that the defendant failed to prove the lack of a fair proceedings or impartial courts in China and ordered the defendant to make the decision.
In the last 15 years, the few cases where a Chinese decision has not been recognized were based on procedural issues or lack of jurisdiction of the subject, not arguments on the just procedure in the Chinese judicial system. See, e.g.; Beijing Zhong Xian Wei Yeh Stainless Decoration CTR. v. Guo2020 WL 2404938 (ny sup. Ct., NY CNTY, 7 May 2020). Chen v. SUN2016 WL 270869 (SDNY January 21, 2016).
It remains to be seen whether the tendency towards the recognition and imposition of the Chinese Court’s judgments will continue in the context of the new political environment. A published decision has been issued since the new Trump administration began. In Northeast Securities Co., Ltd. v. Que wenbin2025 WL 1636410 (Cal. Ct. As amended June 30, 2025, a Chinese company launched a lawsuit at the California State Court to impose a money decision on RMB 294,836,133.74 introduced by the High People Court of Jilin Province for a loan. The defendants opposed the imposition of the enforcement on the basis of the fact that there were defects in the process of providing services before the Chinese court. Both the California trial and the secondary courts rejected the arguments of the accused. Because the case focused on the service and not on the Chinese judicial system in general, we have not yet seen how the courts will react to a direct attack on Chinese courts under the current administration.
If the US government continues to focus on China as an economic and political competitor or enemy, the plaintiffs seeking to impose Chinese court judgments may face stronger opposition than counterparties and increase the US courts. This, in turn, could have a side effect on parties seeking to impose US crises on China.
To read more than Karen kingPlease visit www.maglaw.com.
Emily Smit, a business partner, helped prepare this article.
