Jam v. International Finance Corp.

Whether the International Organizations Immunities Act—which affords international organizations the “same immunity” from suit that foreign governments have, 22 U.S.C. § 288a(b)— confers the same immunity on such organizations as foreign governments have under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-11, and if not, what are the rules governing the immunity to which international organizations are entitled?

Respondent corporation is designated as an international organization under the International Organizations Immunities Act (“IOIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 288a(b). Respondent financed construction of a power plant in India by providing $450 million in loans to private organizations. The loan agreement included an express waiver of immunity stating that actions could be brought against the Respondent only in territories in which Respondent corporation had an office. Petitioners argued Respondent was liable under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), for commercial activities within the United States. The district court held that Respondent was immune under the IOIA. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Petitioner asks the Court to resolve whether the IOIA —which affords international organizations the “same immunity” from suit that foreign governments have —confers the same immunity on such organizations as articulated under FSIA. Petitioner argues that the official policy of the government is the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity articulated in FSIA. FSIA provides that international organizations do not enjoy immunity for their actions with regard to their commercial activities. Petitioner asks the court to resolve a circuit split over the question of whether the rules governing immunity for international organizations track those in the FSIA, arguing that bestowing absolute immunity on international organizations impedes legal accountability of foreign nations.