Jam v. International Finance Corp.
2019 U.S. LEXIS 1594, 139 S. Ct. 759, 203 L. Ed. 2d 53 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) grants international organizations the same scope of immunity from lawsuits that foreign governments currently enjoy under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The IOIA's reference to immunity 'as is enjoyed' by foreign governments is dynamic and evolves as the law of foreign sovereign immunity changes.
Facts:
- The International Finance Corporation (IFC) is an international organization, headquartered in the United States, that finances private-sector development projects in developing countries.
- In 2008, the IFC loaned $450 million to Coastal Gujarat Power Limited to help finance the construction of a coal-fired power plant in Gujarat, India.
- The loan agreement required the project to comply with an environmental and social action plan to protect the surrounding areas.
- A group of farmers and fishermen, including Budha Ismail Jam, who live near the plant alleged that pollution from the plant, including coal dust and contaminated water, destroyed their environment and livelihoods.
- An internal audit by the IFC concluded that Coastal Gujarat had not complied with the environmental plan and that the IFC's supervision of the project was inadequate.
Procedural Posture:
- Budha Ismail Jam and other local residents sued the International Finance Corporation (IFC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The IFC filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting it was absolutely immune from suit under the IOIA.
- The District Court, applying binding circuit precedent, granted the IFC's motion to dismiss.
- The petitioners appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal, acknowledging it was bound by its own precedent.
- The petitioners filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the U.S. Supreme Court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), which grants international organizations the 'same immunity from suit... as is enjoyed by foreign governments,' provide the virtually absolute immunity that foreign governments possessed in 1945 or the more limited, restrictive immunity they possess today?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
No. The IOIA grants international organizations the restrictive immunity that foreign governments possess today, not the virtually absolute immunity they enjoyed in 1945. The statutory phrase 'same immunity... as is enjoyed' creates a continuous link between the immunity of international organizations and that of foreign governments, ensuring they remain equivalent over time. This interpretation is supported by the 'reference canon,' which holds that a statute's general reference to a body of law incorporates that law as it evolves. If Congress had intended to freeze the immunity standard at 1945 levels, it would have used more explicit, non-comparative language or specified a date. Furthermore, the ability of organizations to define their own immunity in their charters, and the existing limits within the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) on what constitutes actionable 'commercial activity,' mitigate concerns about excessive litigation.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Yes. The IOIA should be interpreted as granting the virtually absolute immunity that existed in 1945, consistent with the statute's history and purpose. The majority's focus on linguistic canons is misplaced; the core purpose of the 1945 Act was to fulfill U.S. commitments and encourage international organizations to operate in the U.S. by providing them with the broad immunity they expected and required, which included immunity for commercial acts. Unlike sovereign nations, the core function of many of these organizations is commercial in nature, so stripping this immunity undermines the statute's original intent and exposes them to disruptive litigation in the courts of a single member nation. A static interpretation, combined with the President's authority under the Act to selectively waive immunity, provides a more flexible and appropriate framework that respects the multilateral nature of these organizations.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters the legal exposure of international organizations in the United States by rejecting decades of precedent in key jurisdictions that had granted them absolute immunity. By dynamically linking their immunity to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), the Court opens these organizations to lawsuits based on their commercial activities, particularly development financing. The ruling shifts the legal battleground from whether these organizations can be sued at all to whether their specific actions fall under the FSIA's commercial activity exception. This will likely lead to a new body of case law defining the scope of 'commercial activity' for unique entities like development banks and may impact their operational decisions and risk management.
