Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1011_mkhn.pdf
Page Number: 35

16 

JAM v. INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

Were  we  to  interpret  the  statute  statically,  then,  the 
default  rule  would  be  immunity  in  suits  arising  from  an
organization’s  commercial  activities.  But  the  Executive 
Branch  would  have  the  power  to  withdraw  immunity
where  immunity  is  not  warranted,  as  the  Act  itself  pro-
vides.  And  in  making  that  determination,  it  could  con-
sider  whether  allowing  the  lawsuit  would  jeopardize  the 
organization’s ability to carry out its public interest tasks.
In a word,  the Executive Branch,  under a static interpre-
tation,  would  have  the  authority  needed  to  separate  law-
suit sheep from lawsuit goats.   

Under the majority’s interpretation, by contrast, there is 
no such flexibility.  The Executive does not have the power 
to  tailor  immunity  by  taking  into  account  the  risk  of  a 
lawsuit’s  unjustified  interference  with  institutional  objec-
tives  or  other  institutional  needs.   Rather,  the  majority’s
holding  takes  away  an  international  organization’s  im-
munity  (in  cases  arising  from  “commercial”  activities)
across the board.  And without a new statute, there is no 
way  to  restore  it,  in  whole  or  in  part.  Nothing  in  the
present  statute  gives  the  Executive,  the  courts,  or  the
organization  the  power  to  restore  immunity,  or  to  tailor
any resulting potential liability, where a lawsuit threatens
seriously  to  interfere  with  an  organization’s  legitimate
needs and goals.

Thus,  the  static  interpretation  comes  equipped  with 
flexibility.  It  comes  equipped  with  a  means  to  withdraw 
immunity where justified.  But the dynamic interpretation 
freezes potential liability into law.  It withdraws immunity
automatically  and  irretrievably,  irrespective  of  institu-
tional  harm. 
It  seems  highly  unlikely  that  Congress 
would have wanted this result. 

* 

* 

* 

At  the  end  of  World  War  II,  many  in  this  Nation  saw 
international  cooperation  through  international  organiza-