Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1011_mkhn.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2018 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

JAM ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

No. 17–1011.  Argued October 31, 2018—Decided February 27, 2019 

In  1945,  Congress  passed  the  International  Organizations  Immunities
Act  (IOIA),  which,  among  other  things,  grants  international  organi-
zations  the  “same  immunity  from  suit  .  .  .  as  is  enjoyed  by  foreign  
governments.”    22  U. S. C.  §288a(b).    At  that  time,  foreign  govern-
ments were entitled to virtually absolute immunity as a matter of in-
ternational grace and comity.  In 1952, the State Department adopt-
ed  a  more  restrictive  theory  of  foreign  sovereign  immunity,  which 
Congress subsequently codified in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities 
Act (FSIA), 28 U. S. C. §1602.  The FSIA gives foreign sovereign gov-
ernments presumptive immunity from suit, §1604, subject to several
statutory exceptions, including, as relevant here, an exception for ac-
tions  based  on  commercial  activity  with  a  sufficient  nexus  with  the 
United States, §1605(a)(2).

Respondent  International  Finance  Corporation  (IFC),  an  IOIA  in-
ternational organization, entered into a loan agreement with Coastal
Gujarat Power Limited, a company based in India, to finance the con-
struction of a coal-fired power plant in Gujarat.  Petitioners sued the 
IFC, claiming that pollution from the plant harmed the surrounding
air, land, and water.  The District Court, however, held that the IFC 
was  immune  from  suit  because  it  enjoyed  the  virtually  absolute  im-
munity that foreign governments enjoyed when the IOIA was enact-
ed.  The D. C. Circuit affirmed in light of its decision in Atkinson v. 
Inter-American Development Bank, 156 F. 3d 1335. 

Held: The IOIA affords international organizations the same immunity
from  suit  that  foreign  governments  enjoy  today  under  the  FSIA. 
Pp. 6–15.

(a) The  IOIA  “same  as”  formulation  is  best  understood  as  making 
international organization immunity and foreign sovereign immunity