Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1011_mkhn.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

2 

JAM v. INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. 

Opinion of the Court 

tion  of  a  power  plant  in  Gujarat,  India.  Petitioners  are 
local  farmers  and  fishermen  and  a  small  village.  They
allege that the power plant has polluted the air, land, and 
water  in  the  surrounding  area.    Petitioners  sued  the  IFC 
for  damages  and  injunctive  relief  in  Federal  District
Court,  but  the  IFC  claimed  absolute  immunity  from  suit.
Petitioners  argued  that  the  IFC  was  entitled  under  the 
IOIA  only  to  the  limited  or  “restrictive”  immunity  that
foreign governments currently enjoy.  We agree. 

I 
A 

In  the  wake  of  World  War  II,  the  United  States  and 
many of its allies joined together to establish a host of new
international  organizations.  Those  organizations,  which
included  the  United  Nations,  the  International  Monetary
Fund, and  the World  Bank,  were designed to allow mem-
ber countries to collectively  pursue goals such as stabiliz-
ing  the  international  economy,  rebuilding  war-torn  na-
tions, and maintaining international peace and security.

Anticipating  that  those  and  other  international  organi-
zations  would  locate  their  headquarters  in  the  United
States,  Congress  passed  the  International  Organizations
Immunities  Act  of  1945,  59  Stat.  669.    The  Act  grants
international organizations a set of privileges and immun-
ities,  such  as  immunity  from  search  and  exemption  from 
property taxes.  22 U. S. C. §§288a(c), 288c.

The  IOIA  defines  certain  privileges  and  immunities  by
reference to comparable privileges and immunities enjoyed
by  foreign  governments.  For  example,  with  respect  to
customs  duties  and  the  treatment  of  official  communica-
tions, the Act grants international organizations the privi-
leges  and  immunities  that  are  “accorded  under  similar 
circumstances  to  foreign  governments.”    §288a(d).  The 
provision  at  issue  in  this  case  provides  that  international
organizations  “shall  enjoy  the  same  immunity  from  suit