Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1011_mkhn.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

6 

JAM v. INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

statute’s  basic  purposes,”  ibid.,  as  well  as  “ ‘the  history  of 
the  times  when  it  was  passed,’ ”  Leo  Sheep  Co.  v.  United 
States, 440 U. S. 668, 669 (1979) (quoting United States v. 
Union Pacific R. Co., 91 U. S. 72, 79 (1875)).  In this case, 
historical  context,  purpose,  and  related  consequences  tell 
us  a  great  deal  about  the  proper  interpretation  of  the
Immunities Act. 

Congressional  reports  explain  that  Congress,  acting  in
the  immediate  aftermath  of  World  War  II,  intended  the 
Immunities  Act  to  serve  two  related  purposes.    First,  it 
would  “enabl[e]  this  country  to  fulfill  its  commitments  in 
connection with its membership in international organiza-
tions.”  S. Rep. No. 861, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1945); see 
also  id.,  at  2–3  (explaining  that  the  Immunities  Act  was 
“basic  legislation”  expected  to  “satisfy  in  full  the  require-
ments of . . . international organizations conducting activi-
ties  in  the  United  States”);  H. R. Rep.  No.  1203,  79th 
Cong.,  1st  Sess., 3  (1945)  (similar).    And  second,  it  would 
“facilitate  fully  the  functioning  of  international  organiza-
tions in this country.”  S. Rep. No. 861, at 3. 

A 

I  first  examine  the  international  commitments  that 
Congress sought to fulfill.  By 1945, the United States had 
entered into agreements creating several important multi-
lateral  organizations,  including  the  United  Nations  (UN), 
the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, 
the  UN  Relief  and  Rehabilitation  Administration 
(UNRRA),  and  the  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization 
(FAO).  See id., at 2. 

The  founding  agreements  for  several  of  these  organiza-
tions required member states to grant them broad immun-
ity  from  suit.  The  Bretton  Woods  Agreements,  for  exam-
ple,  provided  that  the  IMF  “shall  enjoy  immunity  from 
every  form  of  judicial  process  except  to  the  extent  that  it 
expressly waives its immunity.”  Articles of Agreement of