Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1011_mkhn.pdf
Page Number: 10

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

day.  We  think  petitioners  have  the  better  reading  of  the 
statute. 

A 
The language of the IOIA more naturally lends itself to
petitioners’  reading.  In  granting  international  organiza-
tions  the  “same  immunity”  from  suit  “as  is  enjoyed  by
foreign  governments,”  the  Act  seems  to  continuously  link 
the  immunity  of  international  organizations  to  that  of
foreign  governments,  so  as  to  ensure  ongoing  parity  be-
tween  the  two.  The  statute  could  otherwise  have  simply 
stated  that  international  organizations  “shall  enjoy  abso-
lute  immunity  from  suit,”  or  specified  some  other  fixed 
level  of  immunity.    Other  provisions  of  the  IOIA,  such  as 
the  one  making  the  property  and  assets  of  international 
organizations  “immune  from  search,”  use  such  noncom-
parative language to define immunities in a static way.  22 
U. S. C. §288a(c).  Or the statute could have specified that 
it was incorporating the law of foreign sovereign immunity 
as it existed on a particular date.  See, e.g., Energy Policy
Act  of  1992,  30  U. S. C.  §242(c)(1)  (certain  land  patents 
“shall  provide  for  surface  use  to  the  same  extent  as  is
provided under applicable law prior to October 24, 1992”).
Because  the  IOIA  does  neither  of  those  things,  we  think
the  “same  as”  formulation  is  best  understood  to  make 
international  organization  immunity  and  foreign  sover-
eign immunity continuously equivalent. 

That  reading  finds  support  in  other  statutes  that  use
similar or identical language to place two groups on equal 
footing. 
In  the  Civil  Rights  Act  of  1866,  for  instance,
Congress  established  a  rule  of  equal  treatment  for  newly 
freed slaves by giving them the “same right” to make and 
enforce  contracts  and  to  buy  and  sell  property  “as  is  en-
joyed by white citizens.”  42 U. S. C. §§1981(a), 1982.  That 
provision is of course understood to guarantee continuous
equality between white and nonwhite citizens with respect