Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1011_mkhn.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

8 

JAM v. INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. 

Opinion of the Court 

to  the  rights  in  question.    See  Jones  v.  Alfred  H.  Mayer 
Co., 392 U. S. 409, 427–430 (1968).  Similarly, the Federal
Tort  Claims  Act  states  that  the  “United  States  shall  be 
liable” in tort “in the same manner and to the same extent 
as  a  private  individual  under  like  circumstances.”    28 
U. S. C.  §2674.    That  provision  is  most  naturally  under-
stood to make the United States liable in the same way as 
a  private  individual  at  any  given  time.    See  Richards  v. 
United  States,  369  U. S.  1,  6–7  (1962).    Such  “same  as” 
provisions  dot  the  statute  books,  and  federal  and  state 
courts  commonly  read  them  to  mandate  ongoing  equal 
treatment of two groups or objects.  See, e.g., Adamson v. 
Bowen, 855 F. 2d 668, 671–672 (CA10 1988) (statute mak-
ing United States liable for fees and expenses “to the same
extent  that  any  other  party  would  be  liable  under  the 
common law or under the terms of any statute” interpreted 
to  continuously  tie  liability  of  United  States  to  that  of
any  other  party);  Kugler’s  Appeal,  55  Pa.  123,  124–125 
(1867) (statute making the procedure for dividing election
districts  “the  same  as”  the  procedure  for  dividing  town-
ships interpreted to continuously tie the former procedure 
to the latter).

The  IFC  objects  that  the  IOIA  is  different  because  the
purpose of international organization immunity is entirely 
distinct  from  the  purpose  of  foreign  sovereign  immunity.
Foreign sovereign immunity, the IFC argues, is grounded 
in the mutual respect of sovereigns and serves the ends of
international  comity  and  reciprocity.    The  purpose  of 
international organization immunity, on the other hand, is
to allow such organizations to freely pursue the collective 
goals  of  member  countries  without  undue  interference
from  the  courts  of  any  one  member  country.    The  IFC 
therefore urges that the IOIA should not be read to tether 
international  organization  immunity  to  changing  foreign
sovereign immunity.

But  that  gets  the  inquiry  backward.    We  ordinarily