Missouri’s Legal Victory Against China Sets Precedent for COVID-19 Accountability

Missouri’s legal victory against China over its role in the COVID-19 pandemic has set a precedent for other U.S. states to follow, according to political expert Mark Thomas. On March 7, U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh ruled in favor of Missouri, ordering China to pay nearly $24.5 billion in damages for allegedly covering up the pandemic and hoarding medical supplies. Thomas, a political science professor at La Salle University, called the ruling a just decision that paves the way for similar lawsuits from other states.

Missouri initially sued the Chinese Communist Party in April 2020, accusing it of concealing critical information about the virus and worsening the global health crisis. Though the lawsuit faced early setbacks, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit later reinstated a key claim under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, specifically focusing on China’s alleged hoarding of medical supplies. The lawsuit named several defendants, including the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese Communist Party, the National Health Commission of China, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the governments of Wuhan and Hubei Province.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey called the ruling a historic victory, stating that it holds China accountable for unleashing COVID-19 on the world. The case relied on U.S. antitrust law to argue that China’s actions constituted economic misconduct. Court documents revealed that China was aware of COVID-19 as early as September 2019 but publicly denied its contagious nature until January 2020. The lawsuit accused China of hoarding personal protective equipment while the rest of the world was unaware of the virus, selling low-quality medical supplies to the U.S. after stockpiling higher-quality equipment, and seizing factories that produced masks for American companies, preventing exports to the U.S. The court ruled that these actions amounted to anticompetitive behavior on a country-wide scale and violated U.S. antitrust law. Since China failed to appear in court, the judge issued a default judgment.

Missouri is now focusing on collecting the damages. Attorney General Bailey announced plans to seize Chinese-owned assets in the state, including farmland, to recover the $24.5 billion judgment. Thomas, an expert in counterterrorism and counterespionage, supported this approach, highlighting that China has invested over $201 billion in the U.S., with holdings in real estate, agriculture, technology, and manufacturing. Missouri’s share of that investment is estimated to be between $1 billion and $10 billion. Thomas argued that seizing assets serves both economic and security interests, warning that Chinese-owned farmland near U.S. military bases could be used for surveillance.

The ruling has broader implications, potentially inspiring other states to take legal action. States with significant Chinese investments, such as California, Texas, and New York, could also pursue lawsuits and seize assets. Thomas suggested that the U.S. government could leverage the ruling to impose sanctions, freeze assets, or restrict Chinese capital flows, similar to measures taken against Russia.

Beyond financial compensation, Missouri’s case sends a strong global message. Other countries may now consider legal action to hold China accountable for its handling of the pandemic. Thomas emphasized that this case opens the floodgates and provides the U.S. with a bargaining chip on issues such as trade, human rights, and national security.