Jam v. International Finance Corp.
139 S. Ct. 759
| SCOTUS | 2019Background
- The International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) of 1945 provides international organizations "the same immunity from suit ... as is enjoyed by foreign governments." 22 U.S.C. § 288a(b).
- International Finance Corporation (IFC), an IOIA-designated international organization, financed a coal-fired power plant in Gujarat, India; local residents sued the IFC in D.C. federal court alleging pollution-related torts and contract claims.
- IFC moved to dismiss asserting absolute immunity under the IOIA; the District Court and D.C. Circuit held the IOIA conferred the virtually absolute immunity that foreign governments enjoyed in 1945.
- Petitioners argued the IOIA ties international-organization immunity to the current scope of foreign sovereign immunity (i.e., the restrictive doctrine codified in the FSIA), exposing international organizations to suits based on commercial activity.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the IOIA links international-organization immunity to foreign sovereign immunity as of 1945 (static) or as it exists today (dynamic).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Temporal scope of IOIA cross-reference to "immunity ... enjoyed by foreign governments" | IOIA ties organizational immunity to whatever immunity foreign governments enjoy today (dynamic/continuous parity) | IOIA fixed organizational immunity at the level foreign governments enjoyed in 1945 (static, virtually absolute) | The IOIA ties international organizations' immunity to the immunity of foreign governments as it exists at the time of suit (dynamic); IOIA immunity is governed today by the FSIA framework |
| Canon of reference / incorporation | General references to external, evolving bodies of law incorporate later changes; thus IOIA updates with foreign-sovereign-immunity developments | The phrase is a 1945 common-law reference with fixed meaning; ordinary presumption favors incorporation of contemporaneous common-law meaning | The Court applies the reference canon: a general reference to foreign-government immunity adopts the evolving law on that subject rather than a fixed 1945 meaning |
| Role of the President's §288 authority to modify immunities | §288 allows case-by-case tailoring and does not imply Congress froze IOIA immunity in 1945 | §288 shows Congress delegated updating authority to the President, implying Congress did not intend IOIA to update automatically | §288 is read as an executive power to adjust immunities for particular organizations, compatible with a dynamic statutory link to foreign-sovereign immunity |
| Policy/consequential concerns about exposing IOs to suits | Restrictive immunity suits are limited by FSIA exceptions, nexus and "based upon" requirements; charters and executive action can provide or preserve broader immunity | Removing absolute immunity undermines IO functioning, contradicts 1945 purpose, and risks foreign-relations/interference concerns | The Court finds policy concerns insufficient to overcome textual and interpretive canons; IOs are not categorically immune from suits arising from commercial activity under current foreign-sovereign-immunity law |
Key Cases Cited
- Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (2010) (discusses State Department views and courts' historical deference in foreign sovereign immunity matters)
- Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480 (1983) (background on pre-FSIA immunity practice)
- Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004) (FSIA transferred primary responsibility for immunity determinations to the judiciary)
- Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607 (1992) (defines "commercial activity" for FSIA purposes)
- Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993) (explains "based upon" requirement and gravamen analysis under FSIA)
- Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2003) (illustrative of temporal interpretation issues for statutory language)
- McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011) (illustrative of present-tense verb temporal interpretation)