Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1011_mkhn.pdf
Page Number: 6

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign
governments.”  §288a(b).

The  IOIA  authorizes  the  President  to  withhold,  with-
draw,  condition,  or  limit  the  privileges  and  immunities  it 
grants  in  light  of  the  functions  performed  by  any  given
international  organization.  §288.   Those  privileges  and
immunities can also be expanded or restricted by a partic-
ular organization’s founding charter. 

B 
When  the  IOIA  was  enacted  in  1945,  courts  looked  to 
the views of the Department of State in deciding whether 
a  given  foreign  government  should  be  granted  immunity 
from  a  particular  suit.    If  the  Department  submitted  a 
recommendation  on  immunity,  courts  deferred  to  the
recommendation.  If  the  Department  did  not  make  a  rec-
ommendation,  courts  decided  for  themselves  whether  to 
grant immunity, although they did so by reference to State
Department  policy.    Samantar  v.  Yousuf,  560  U. S.  305, 
311–312 (2010).

Until 1952, the State Department adhered to the classi-
cal  theory  of  foreign  sovereign  immunity.  According  to
that theory, foreign governments are entitled to “virtually
absolute” immunity as a matter of international grace and
comity.  At the time the IOIA was enacted, therefore, the 
Department  ordinarily  requested,  and  courts  ordinarily 
granted,  immunity  in  suits  against  foreign  governments. 
Ibid.; Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U. S. 
480, 486 (1983).1 

In 1952, however, the State Department announced that 
it  would  adopt  the  newer  “restrictive”  theory  of  foreign 

—————— 

1 The  immunity  was  “virtually”  absolute  because  it  was  subject  to 
occasional  exceptions  for  specific  situations.    In  Republic  of  Mexico  v. 
Hoffman,  324  U. S.  30  (1945),  for  example,  the  State  Department
declined  to  recommend,  and  the  Court  did  not  grant,  immunity  from
suit with respect to a ship that Mexico owned but did not possess.