Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1011_mkhn.pdf
Page Number: 22

Cite as:  586 U. S. ____ (2019) 

3 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

organizations  the  “same  immunity  from  suit  . . .  as  is 
enjoyed by foreign governments.”  Brief for Petitioners 23– 
24.  They  invoke  the  Dictionary  Act,  which  states  that 
“words  used  in  the  present  tense  include  the  future”  “un-
less  the  context  indicates  otherwise.”    1  U. S. C.  §1.    But 
that provision creates only a presumption.  And it did not 
even appear in the statute until 1948, after Congress had
passed  the  Immunities  Act.  Compare  §1,  61  Stat.  633, 
with §6, 62 Stat. 859.

More  fundamentally,  the  words  “as  is  enjoyed”  do  not
conclusively  tell  us  when  enjoyed.    Do  they  mean  “as  is  
enjoyed” at the time of the statute’s enactment?  Or “as is 
enjoyed”  at  the  time  a  plaintiff  brings  a  lawsuit?    If  the 
former,  international  organizations  enjoy  immunity  from 
lawsuits  based  upon  their  commercial  activities,  for  that 
was  the  scope  of  immunity  that  foreign  governments
enjoyed in 1945 when the Immunities Act became law.  If 
the  latter,  international  organizations  do  not  enjoy  that
immunity,  for  foreign  governments  can  no  longer  claim
immunity  from  lawsuits  based  upon  certain  commercial 
activities.  See 28 U. S. C. §1605(a)(2).

Linguistics does not answer the temporal question.  Nor 
do  our  cases,  which  are  not  perfectly  consistent  on  the 
matter.  Compare McNeill v. United States, 563 U. S. 816, 
821 (2011) (present-tense verb in the Armed Career Crim-
inal Act requires applying the law at the time of previous
conviction,  not  the  later  time  when  the  Act  is  applied),
with Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U. S. 468, 478 (2003) 
(present-tense verb requires applying the law “at the time 
suit  is  filed”).  The  problem  is  simple:    “Without  knowing
the point in time at which the law speaks, it is impossible 
to tell what is past and what is present or future.”  Carr v. 
United  States,  560  U. S.  438,  463  (2010)  (ALITO,  J.,  dis-
senting).  It  is  purpose,  not  linguistics,  that  can  help  us 
here. 

The words “same . . . as,” in the phrase “same immunity