Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1011_mkhn.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

6 

JAM v. INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. 

Opinion of the Court 

They  claimed  that  pollution  from  the  plant,  such  as  coal
dust, ash, and water from the plant’s cooling system, had
destroyed  or  contaminated  much  of  the  surrounding  air, 
land, and water.  Relying on the audit report, they asserted
several  causes  of  action  against  the  IFC,  including  negli-
gence,  nuisance,  trespass,  and  breach  of  contract.  The 
IFC  maintained  that  it  was  immune  from  suit  under  the 
IOIA  and  moved  to  dismiss  for  lack  of  subject  matter 
jurisdiction.

The  District  Court,  applying  D. C.  Circuit  precedent,
concluded that the IFC was immune from suit because the 
IOIA  grants  international  organizations  the  virtually 
absolute  immunity  that  foreign  governments  enjoyed 
when  the  IOIA  was  enacted.  172  F. Supp.  3d  104,  108– 
109  (DC  2016)  (citing  Atkinson  v.  Inter-American  Devel-
opment  Bank,  156  F. 3d  1335  (CADC  1998)).    The  D. C. 
Circuit  affirmed  in  light  of  its  precedent.    860  F. 3d  703 
(2017).  Judge  Pillard  wrote  separately  to  say  that  she 
would  have  decided  the  question  differently  were  she 
writing on a clean slate.  Id., at 708 (concurring opinion). 
Judge Pillard explained that she thought the D. C. Circuit 
“took a wrong turn” when it “read the IOIA to grant inter-
national organizations a static, absolute immunity that is, 
by  now,  not  at  all  the  same  ‘as  is  enjoyed  by  foreign  gov-
ernments,’ but substantially broader.”  Ibid.  Judge Pillard
also noted that the Third Circuit had expressly declined to 
follow the D. C. Circuit’s approach.  See OSS Nokalva, Inc. 
v. European Space Agency, 617 F. 3d 756 (CA3 2010). 

We granted certiorari.  584 U. S. ___ (2018). 

II 
The  IFC  contends  that  the  IOIA  grants  international
organizations the “same immunity” from suit that foreign
governments  enjoyed  in  1945.  Petitioners  argue  that  it 
instead  grants  international  organizations  the  “same 
immunity”  from  suit  that  foreign  governments  enjoy  to-